- (1.) The petitioner who has been facing his prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah has come up before this Court for quashing of the said case on the ground that the Court concerned is lacking of the territorial jurisdiction.
(2.) It has been vehemently contended before this Court that from the face of the allegations made in the complaint, it is absolutely clear that not a single event has been taken place giving rise to the cause of action empowering the Court concerned to take cognizance of the offence and hold the trial. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of Harman Electronics Private Limited & Anr. Vs. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd.,2009 2 CrLR 686. On the other hand, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party opposed the prayer for quashing and relied on the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr., 1999 SCC(Cri) 1284.
(3.) Now, having gone through the complaint in question, I find the cheque in question was drawn on a bank situated at R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata and the cheque was dishonoured by the said bank. The demand notice was admittedly served upon the complainant at his address at Kolkata. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harman Electronics Private Limited & Anr. Vs. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. (supra), the Court at Howrah has no territorial jurisdiction to hold the trial in respect of the alleged offence. It is the communication of the demand notice and consequent refusal to make payment would give rise to the cause of action and not the sending of notice. This application thus stands allowed.;