Sabina, J. - (1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the criminal complaint No. 17443/2010/12561 dated 4.6.2008 and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.
(2.) The complainant has filed the complaint qua dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner. Para 5 of the complaint reads as under:- "That is clear from the facts narrated above that the said cheques have been returned dishonoured by the bankers of the accused despite the assurance of its encasement in discharge of his liability and thus he is guilty of the commission of the offence under section 138 Neotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of the said cheque. The legal notice for demand of payment was issued from Chandigarh therefore this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint."
(3.) Thus, the complaint had been filed at Chandigarh as the notice qua the demand of payment was issued from Chandigarh. Admittedly, all the transactions between the parties had taken place at Jallandhar. It has been held by the Apex Court in ' M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and another v. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 458 , that sending of notice from a different place would not give a jurisdiction to try the case to the said court. In the said case, the entire transaction had taken place at Chandigarh. However, the notice qua dishonour of cheque was sent from Delhi and, thereafter, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short) was filed at Delhi. The Apex Court held that sending of the notice from Delhi would not give the Delhi Court a jurisdiction to try the suit. In the present case, the complaint had been filed at Chandigarh, although the cause of action had arisen at Jallandhar. The legal notice for demand of payment had been issued from Chandigarh. The courts at Chandigarh do not have the jurisdiction to try the complaint. As per Annexure P-2, a settlement was arrived at between the parties. Admittedly, in terms of the settlement, two cheques were issued by the petitioner but only one cheque out of the same was got encased by the complainant. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The complaint No. 17443/2010/12561 dated 4.6.2008 and all subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed. Petition allowed. ;