C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed to quash the private complaint filed by the 1 st respondent against the petitioner in connection with the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 26,100/- issued by him to the 1st respondent. ( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the dishonoured cheque was issued in connection with a chit transaction which took place in visakhapatnam District and since 1st respondent, who presented (he cheque in the first. instance at Hyderabad, after its dishonour deliberately and with an intention to harass the petitioner again presented the cheque for payment at Nellore and got issued a legal notice to the petitioner after its dishonour for which petitioner had sent a reply, and had paid Rs. 5,000/- on 1-3-2004 and Rs. 5,000/- on 11-3-2004 under valid receipts and since 1st respondent filed the complaint without disclosing the payment of that Rs. 10,000/ - it is clear that the complaint is filed at Nellore only with a view to harass the petitioner, by mischievously failing to disclose the payments made by the petitioner, and since the statutoiy notice got issued by the 1st respondent there is a demand for payment of amount towards notice charges and collection charges apart from the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, it is clear that the said notice is not in accordance with S. 138 of the Act and so the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. ( 3 ) IN this case in the statutory notice it is stated as follows "that you are hereby demanded to arrange payment of Rs. 21,600/- with collection charges and also with Rs. 200/- towards this notice charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice. " When there is a clear demand for payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, the fact that additional amounts which are not covered by the dishonoured cheque, also are demanded would not invalidate the notice under S. 138 of the Act as held in K. R. Indira v. G. Adinarayana, 2003 (8) SCC 300 : ( AIR 2003 SC 4689 ). So I find no grounds to quash the proceedings on the ground that same amounts other than the amounts covered by the dishonoured cheque are demanded in the statutory notice. So I find no grounds to quash the proceedings on the ground that same amounts other than the amounts covered by the dishonoured cheque are demanded in the statutory notice. ( 4 ) IN K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 : (1999 Cri LJ 4606 ). the Apex Court held that the Courts in whose jurisdiction the dishonour cheque was presented for payment or the place where the cheque was returned unpaid by the drawee bank etc. , would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under S. 138 of the Act. So it is clear that the Court at the place where the cheque is presented for payment also, has jurisdiction to entertain the application and so the Court at Nellore in whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for payment by 1st respondent does have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. ( 5 ) SINCE the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is Rs. 21,600/- and since admittedly petitioner did not pay the entire amount of Rs. 21. 600/- within a period mentioned in the demand notice, 1st respondent has a right to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under S. 138 of the Act in spite of the fact that petitioner claimed to have paid Rs. 10,000/- to the 1st respondent and his failure to mention the part payments allegedly made by the petitioner is not and cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to quash proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, criminal petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.