ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner (original accused) questioned the order of issuance of process dated 15/03/2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, Wardha in Summary Criminal Case No. 213 of 2008 as also order dated 06/03/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No. 6 of 2010 on ground that the learned trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and besides erroneous findings were recorded on the question of territorial jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate. I have seen the original copy of the Criminal Complaint Case No. 213/2008; which indicates from the title itself that the complainant is resident of Wardha, Taluka & District Wardha, while accused are resident of Nagpur. It appears the case of the complainant that cheque in the sum of Rs. 2,06,657/drawn upon Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Limited, Branch MIDC, Nagpur bearing cheque no. 461863, dated 20/10/2007 was issued by the accused which was presented by the complainant with State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Treasury Branch, Wardha for realization. The collecting banker by their intimation memo dated 17/11/2007 returned the cheque with an endorsement that cheque could not be honoured due to Funds Insufficient in the account of the accused. After dishonour of the cheque, the complainant had issued demand notice dated 12/12/2007 by registered post with acknowledgment due and also under postal certificate on both the addresses of the accused i.e. office address and on residential address. It is contended that, despite demand notice and service thereof, the cheque amount was not paid and hence the complaint was filed. The accused had challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the learned trial Magistrate at Wardha had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.

3. The fact that the cheque in question was presented at Wardha through collecting banker and the intimation memo regarding dishonour of cheque was received by the complainant at Wardha is not in dispute, what is disputed is that the complainant is residing at Nagpur. It also appears to have been clarified by the complainant before the trial Court stating that wife of the complainant is serving as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel, Wardha and the complainant is residing at Wadha. It may be true that complainant does not have his own house at Wardha but his wife is employed at Wardha as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel, Wardha. It was also clarified by the complainant that he can reside with his wife in her quarters at Girls Nursing Hostel at Wardha. The evidence of the complainant is therefore clear that his wife was employed as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel at Wardha and he also gave his address at Wardha in the cause title of the complaint.

4. Legal position is now clear in view of the ruling in case of Smt. Shamshad Begum V/s. B. Mohammed reported in AIR 2009 SC 1355 [LQ/SC/2008/2194] and observed thus;

16.Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose any one of those courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.

5. The issue was also dealt with by Division Bench of this Court in Preetha S. Babu, Ernakulum V/s. Voltas Ltd., Chochin and another in [2010(3) Mh.L.J. Page 234 in para 31. It is observed thus;

31.Therefore, the cheque can be presented at the collecting bank of the payee. The collecting bank has to then send it to the drawee bank. That must be done within six months. If the cheque is dishonoured and money is not paid within 15 days of the notice, complaint can be filed at the place where the collecting bank is situated. The idea is that the cheque should reach the drawee bank within six months. It can be directly presented to it or it can be presented through the collecting bank.

In view of these observations, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Wardha where the collecting bank is situated and where the cheque in question was presented and dishonoured has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. That being so, petition is meritless and stands dismissed.