JUDGMENT 1. - The accused petitioner No. 1 Tata Finance Ltd. filed this present misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 31.7.2000 by which the Civil Judge (Lower Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar in complaint case No. 202/2000 in offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act took cognizance and against the order dated 21.10.2000 by which the said Court dismissed the application moved for dropping the charge. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. is a Finance Company which provides loan to the persons who purchase vehicles. Non-petitioner No. 2 M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company is a sister concern and works as an agent of petitioner No. 1. That on the assurance given by the petitioner company and after issuance of cheque worth Rs. 3,25,800/-, the non-petitioner No. 1, (complainant) sold a Mahendra Jeep to one Shri Ashok Kumar Meena. The cheque No. 346274 dated 7.2.2000 of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur issued by M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company in favour of J.S. Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd., non-petitioner complainant was dishonoured and the payment was refused. Upon which the complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. and M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company on 16.2.2000 and same was received by the accused persons. Thereafter the case was registered against the petitioner company and respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. After recording the evidence of the non-petitioner No. 1, complainant, the trial Court have taken cognizance against the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 2 on 31.7.2000 and issued bailable warrant worth Rs. 4,000/- to appear before the Trial Court on 31.7.2000. The accused persons appeared before the trial court and submitted the bail bonds on satisfaction of the trial Court and submitted an application dated 7.9.2000 stating that the trial Court has no Jurisdiction since the transaction has taken place in Jaipur and the petitioner is nothing to do with the said transaction because it has taken place between the non-petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 at Jaipur. Moreover, the cheque was issued by the non petitioner No. 2 in favour of non petitioner No. 1 at Jaipur. The cheque was presented at Jaipur Bank which was also returned back without encash. Both the banks of the complainant arid non-petitioner No. 2 are also situated at Jaipur. 1 and 2 at Jaipur. Moreover, the cheque was issued by the non petitioner No. 2 in favour of non petitioner No. 1 at Jaipur. The cheque was presented at Jaipur Bank which was also returned back without encash. Both the banks of the complainant arid non-petitioner No. 2 are also situated at Jaipur. Therefore, there is no involvement of the petitioner and requested to discharge the petitioner by dropping the charges levelled against him so that he may not be harassed by unnecessary trial. The trial Court dismissed the application on 21.10.2000. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 31.7.2000 and 21.10.2000 the petitioner preferred this present writ petition. 3. This petition was listed before this Court on 11.1.2001. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner this court has admitted the petition and issued notice to respondent No. 1 only and so far respondent No. 2 M/s. Intel Finance & Leasing Company was concerned, this court vide order dated 11.1.2001 directed that as the respondent No. 2 himself is an accused and he can file a separate misc. petition before this Court, therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the non-petitioner No. 2 and his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of the respondent. The trial Court record was also called for and this court was pleased to stay the further proceedings against the petitioner. On 10.8.2001 this court on the request of learned counsel granted time to produce the certified copy/true photostat copy of the document presented before the registering authority for the registration of the documents in regard to Mahindra Jeep RJ 14 P8572. This court further directed that if the parties apply for any certified copy/true photostat copies to the Authority concerned, who shall issue the same immediately. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner's first argument was that the cognizance taken by the Civil Judge (Lower Division) No. 2 Alwar in complaint case No. 202/2000 in offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is beyond jurisdiction as already stated above since cheque was issued and presented at Jaipur and both the banks are situated at Jaipur, therefore, Judicial Magistrate No. 2 Alwar has got no jurisdiction. 5. In support of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments on Dishonour of Cheques 881, Canbank Financial Service Ltd. v. Gitanjali Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 5. In support of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments on Dishonour of Cheques 881, Canbank Financial Service Ltd. v. Gitanjali Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. The Delhi High Court in Cri. Revision No. 66 of 1992 passed the judgment dated 6.1.1996 stating therein that the place of handing over of cheque and the place where cheque dishonoured - Complaint can be entertained by the Courts having jurisdiction of both places - Place of dishonour of cheque alone not relevant in determining jurisdiction of the Court - Payment of cheque may be one part and dishonour of cheque may be another part - Both places will have jurisdiction. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on the judgment K.T. Thomal v. M.B. Shah, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3762 where the Apex Court has held that Cheque dishonour - complaint regarding - Whether liable to be dismissed on grounds of want of territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate Court - Raising of such question is an idle exercise - It is difficult to fix up and particular locality as place of occurrence for offence. 7. It was further observed as under : "The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the contention of a number of acts. 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. 8. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments on Dishonour of Cheques T.K. Khungar v. Sanjay Ghai in Cr. Misc. (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 8. The Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgments on Dishonour of Cheques T.K. Khungar v. Sanjay Ghai in Cr. Misc. No. 131-M of 1992, decided on 27th August, 1993 held as under : (B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 142 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 178 - Dishonour of Cheque - Territorial Jurisdiction - Payment of cheque amounts to repayment of loan - Debt will stand discharged only if the cheque is honoured and the payment is made in case of dishonour of cheque debt being not discharged and payee holds status of creditor Rule of Common Law is that a debtor must seek his creditor - Once cheque is dishonoured and payee serves notice he is entitled to enforce his rights under Section 13 of the Act at the place of his business - Courts at Khanna have the jurisdiction to try the criminal charge against petitioner. 9. The Calcutta High Court in judgments on Dishonour of Cheques in Indmark Finance & Investment Co. v. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Writ Petition of 1991 decided on 25th June, 1991 has held as under : "Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 177 and 179 - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint for offence under Act - Complainant Court to try offence - Cheques drawn on bank in Calcutta - But were sent to Bombay - Cheques when presented to bank in Calcutta for encashment were dishonoured instead - Held, Calcutta Court is competent court to try the offence, if any committed. 10. Second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition has not committed any offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act since the petitioner has not issued any cheque whatsoever and the cheque was issued by the non-petitioner No. 2. He also referred the provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is reproduced as under :"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. He also referred the provision of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is reproduced as under :"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank, such persons shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both :It is further admitted that the dishonour of cheque is by itself no evidence under Section 138 to come within the purview of this section unless certain other requirements have to be fulfilled which are : (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipts of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. The petitioner has already stated that the petitioner has not issued any cheque and it is only respondent No. 2 who had issued the cheque which was dishonoured and that if any of offence is made out i.e. made out i.e. against the respondent No. 2 M/s. Entel Finance & Leasing Company and not against the petitioner company M/s. Tata Finance Ltd.12. In reply to the submissions of the petitioner non-petitioner No. 1 submits that the Tata Finance is a sister concern of M/s. Entel Finance & Leasing Company and had submitted certain documents of News clippings before me to show that the Tata Finance and M/s. Entel Finance Company are one and the same, therefore, M/s. Tata Finance is equally responsible as M/s. Entel Finance & Leasing Company is.Mr. A.K. Sharma, has drawn my attention towards the documents which are filed on 28.11.2000. In the cover note of National Insurance Company Ltd. hypothecation was made in the name of Tata Finance and in the certificate of registration also in the column of hire-purchase the name of Tata Finance Company has been mentioned and even in all documents of the purchase of the said Jeep the Tata Finance name has been endorsed and M/s. Entel Finance & Leasing Company is nothing but a sister concern of the Tata Finance, therefore, M/s. Tata Finance is solely responsible for the offence committed under Section 138 of the Act.13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order dated 31.7.2000 by which the cognizance has been taken by the trial Court against the petitioner and also perused the provisions of the Act and judgments referred before me as well as the record of the case. It has come out from the record that the cheque was issued by respondent No. 2 M/s. Entel Finance & Leasing Company and not by Tata Finance Company. I have perused the original cheque in the record. The original cheque was issued by M/s. Entel Finance and Leasing Company and not by the Tata Finance Company, therefore, in view of the judgment referred before me and in view of the provisions of Section 138 no case is made out against M/s. Tata Finance Ltd., may be with the connivance of M/s. Entel Finance Company other offence can be made out but not at least under Section 138. 14. The Misc. petition is, accordingly, allowed. 14. The Misc. petition is, accordingly, allowed. The orders dated 13.7.2000 and 21.10.2000 are set aside.No orders as to cost.Petition allowed. *******