ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.108 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur, is the petitioner herein and he has prayed for quashing the records in the case. 2. Briefly the facts stated in the petition are as follows. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thanjavur. The allegation against the petitioner in the complaint Is that the petitioner had Issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000 bearing No.835954, dated 16.2.2000, drawn on Bank of Madura, Kumbakonam Branch, in favour of the respondent herein and the same was returned for the reason ‘excess arrangement’ on its presentation in the bank of the complainant, namely, the same Bank of Madura, Kumbakonam Branch. According to the petitioner, the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Thanjavur does not have jurisdiction to try the case for the reason that the bank of the petitioner and the bank of the respondent are the same at Kumbakonam and the petitioner is residing at Kumbakonam and the office of the respondent is situated at Papanasam and as such, the jurisdictional Court will be either the Court at Kumbakonam or at Papanasam and not at Thanjavur. Merely because the complainant had issued notice of demand through his Advocate from Thanjavur, it would not make him entitle to file the complaint in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Thanjavur. By stating so, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the records in the above case. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 4. The only ground that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Thanjavur, has no jurisdiction to try the case under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bank of the petitioner as well as the respondent is one and the same viz. Bank of Madura, Kumbakonam Branch and the petitioner also resides at Kumbakonam and the office of the respondent is situated at Papanasam and as such, the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Kumbakonam or Papanasam alone would have jurisdiction to try the case and the complainant had only issued notice of demand through his Advocate from Thanjavur and it will not make him entitle to file the case at Thanjavur. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the complainant gave notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, namely, petitioner herein, demanding payment of the cheque amount from Thanjavur and in fact the respondent in the complaint has specifically stated that the statutory notice has been given from Thanjavur and hence the Court of Judicial Magistrate at Thanjavur has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and he relies on the recent decision of the Apex Court in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999)7 S.C.C. 510 , their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as follows. “II.......Under Sec.177 of the Criminal Procedure Code,”every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed“. The locality where the Bank (which dishonoured the cheque) is situated cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to determine the place of offence. It must be remembered that offence under Sec.138 would not be completed with the dishonour of the cheque. It attains completion only with the failure of the drawer of the cheque to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days mentioned in clause (c) of the Proviso to Sec.138 of the Act.‘It is normally difficult to fix up a particular locality as the place of failure to pay the amount covered by the cheque. A place, for that purpose, would depend upon a variety of factors. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business. 12.......Sec.178 of the Code suggests that if there is uncertainty as to where, among different localities, the offence would have been committed the trial can be had in a Court having jurisdiction over any of those localities. The provision has further widened the scope by staling that in case where the of fence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area the Court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Further, again. Sec.179 of the Code stretches its scope to a still wider horizon...... 14. The offence under Sec.138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Further, again. Sec.179 of the Code stretches its scope to a still wider horizon...... 14. The offence under Sec.138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said Offence: (1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank. (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 15. It is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. It is possible that each of those five acts could be done at five different localities. But a concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Sec.138 of the Act...... 16.....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 Sec.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 Sec.138 of the Act.” 5. The Apex Court has thus laid down that the offence under Sec.138 consists of five acts as components of the offence and 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 and the amplitude stands widened and expansive and it is idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding that offence. The learned counsel for the respondent has also brought to my notice the following earlier rulings of this Court on this point in which this Court has held that the place where the complainant requires the drawer of the cheque to make the payment of dishonoured cheque will also have jurisdiction for taking cognizance of the case under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (a) M/s.Hamosons Apparels (P) Ltd. v. M/s. Sivan Textiles, (1994)1 Crimes 427 . (b) M/s. Deepee Shoe Fabrics (P) Ltd. v. M/s.Pallava Leathers & Products, (1997)1 L.W. (Crl.) 205. (c) Narang Industries Ltd. v. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd, Madras, (1998)1 C.T.C. 229. 6. In the present case, the complainant demanded payment of cheque amount from the drawer of the cheque, namely, petitioner herein, by sending notice from Thanjavur and hence the place where the money is payable will also have the jurisdiction to try the case. Hence the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Thanjavur would also have the jurisdiction to try the case. Therefore, I do not see any ground to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner and the petition is devoid of merit. 7. The petition is dismissed.