JUDGMENT B.P. RAY, J. — In this application u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. the accused-petitioner assails the order dated 15.7.2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Puri rejecting his prayer to recall the order taking cognizance. 2. The complainant-Opposite party instituted a case u/s. 138 of the N.I. Act on the allegation that the accused was sell¬ing homestead lands at Puri. She paid a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- to the accused to purchase a piece of land there. When the accused did not register the land in her favour, she demanded refund of the money together with interest. The accused in discharge of the said debt issued a cheque for Rs.1,67,000/- in her favour. The complainant presented the cheque for collection, but the same was dishonoured. The complainant issued a notice demanding the pay¬ment. Since no payment was made within the stipulated period, the complainant lodged the complaint. 3. Learned Magistrate on consideration of the materials on record took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the learned Magis¬trate and filed an application for recall of the said order of taking cognizance. The Magistrate by the impugned order dated 15.7.2007 rejected the said application. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 4. The question of recalling the order taking cognizance is no more res integra. The Hon’ble apex Court in a decision report¬ed in (2004) 7 SCC 338 , Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & others has held that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any provision authorizing the Court to recall the order by which it has taken cognizance of the offence. Recall of his order by the Magistrate amounts to review of the same and no such juris¬diction has been conferred on the Court under the Code. In view of such authority, no fault can be found with the impugned order rejecting the prayer for recalling the order taking cognizance. 5. It is further contended that no part of the occurrence has taken place at Puri, therefore, learned Magistrate did not have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance and to proceed with the case. It is alleged that the cheque was issued at Bhubaneswar. The same was presented and was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, therefore, the complaint should have been filed at Bhubaneswar. It is alleged that the cheque was issued at Bhubaneswar. The same was presented and was dishonoured at Bhubaneswar, therefore, the complaint should have been filed at Bhubaneswar. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envis¬ages that every offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried in a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. The locality where the bank is situated cannot be regarded as the sole criterion to determine the place of offence. The places where the cheque was issued and was presented for collection are the places where the complaint can be lodged. But those are not the only places for institution of the case. The offence u/s. 138 N.I. Act would not be completed with the dishonour of cheque. It attains completion only with the failure of the drawee of the cheque to pay the cheque amount within the expiry of 15 days. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the places where either of them carries on business. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510 , K. Bhas¬kar v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & another. 6. The complainant resides at Puri, therefore, she has got option to file the case at Puri. Moreover, the notice was issued from Puri. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the Court at Puri had no territorial jurisdiction. 7. It is alleged that the cheque has been dishonoured due to “Account freezed by I.T. Deptt.”, therefore, it did not at¬tract the provision of Section 138 N.I. Act. Admittedly, the accused had the liability to pay the complainant and in discharge of the legal debt the cheque was issued. Once a cheque is issued by a person, presumption u/s. 139 of the Act must follow. The object of bringing Section 138, N.I. Act on the statute appears to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operation and credi¬bility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. The accused was aware that the account on which the cheque in ques¬tion was drawn was attached, yet he issued the same in discharge of the legal debt. In other words, the accused issued the cheque knowing fully well that the same cannot be encashed and is bound to be dishonoured, for which the offence u/s. 138 is attracted. The accused was aware that the account on which the cheque in ques¬tion was drawn was attached, yet he issued the same in discharge of the legal debt. In other words, the accused issued the cheque knowing fully well that the same cannot be encashed and is bound to be dishonoured, for which the offence u/s. 138 is attracted. This act or commission might have also constituted other offence, but that would not preclude the complainant from prosecuting the accused for the offence u/s. 138 N.I. Act. 8. The petitioner contented that he would be highly preju¬diced, if he is not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It appears from the impugned order that the learned Magistrate had posted the case to 27.7.2006 for cross-examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the contention is without any substance and devoid of merit. 9. By order dated 27.4.2007 a single Bench of this Court basing on the submission that the petitioner is willing to pay back the entire amount with interest up to date, had directed the petitioner to come prepared with a fresh draft with up to date interest so that in the event the complainant opposite party No.2 agrees for settlement, the draft can be handed over to her in the Court itself. On 6.2.2008 the petitioner’s advocate filed an affidavit along with two banker’s cheques for Rs.1,67,300/- and Rs.30,500/- stating that the petitioner wants to settle the matter and the counsel for the opposite party No.2 took time to take instruction. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 refused to accept the same stating that he wants to contest the case. Section 138 of the N.I. Act was enacted with a view to provide adequate safeguards to prevent harassment of honest draw¬ers. The objective of enactment of the Act was in public interest and was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities. As the evil practice of issuing cheques in settle¬ment of liabilities without there being adequate amount in the accounts became rampant, therefore, the Union Parliament thought it fit to curb the same effectively by enacting a stringent law. Further the said Section was enacted on the statute to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. 10. Further the said Section was enacted on the statute to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business on negotiable instruments. 10. In the case of Pyari Mohan Das v. Durga Sankar Das and another reported in AIR 1958 Orissa, 125, a Division Bench of this Court held that:- “According to the law of contract, the performance is said to be complete when there is a legal tender on the part of the promisee. It may sometimes happen that a person who is to perform a promise has been ready and willing to perform and has also of¬fered to perform his promise at the proper time and proper place. In such a case, the contract is discharged. It is so discharged even in the case of a wrongful refusal to accept the performance. A valid tender satisfied all the requirements of performance. No doubt if the tender consists in a promise to pay money, then the promisor must go to the creditor, the law being that the debtor must find out the creditor and offer the whole amount to him in such a way, that the creditor might take the whole amount due to him even without the necessity for giving change as was the rule in the olden days. There must be either an actual offer of the money by one party or a dispensation of such offer by the other. But a mode of payment is also determined by the previous conduct of parties.” In the instant case the petitioner has offered twice the amount to the complainant and on instruction Sri Nayak, learned counsel for opp. party No.2 refused to accept the same. 11. In my considered opinion, under the law when a person has tendered the amount payable by him he must be deemed to have discharged his obligation and the creditor is bound to accept the tender. When the petitioner has offered the whole amount along with interest but the complainant refused to accept it both the times, the petitioner could not be said to be guilty of non-payment of the amount. 12. When the petitioner has offered the whole amount along with interest but the complainant refused to accept it both the times, the petitioner could not be said to be guilty of non-payment of the amount. 12. I, therefore direct, if the accused-petitioner deposits twice the amount for which the cheque was dishonoured within six weeks from today by account payee bank draft in the name of the complainant before the trial court, the I.C.C. Case No. 289 of 2004 pending before the learned S.D.J.M., Puri shall be treated to be closed. Failure to deposit the said amount, the trial of the case shall proceed against the accused-petitioner in accord¬ance with law. With the above observation and direction the CRLMC is ac¬cordingly disposed of. CRLMC disposed of.