1. Proceedings initiated upon the complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 29.09.2009 by the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar, are contended to be without jurisdiction so abuse of process of law. 2. Punjab Tractors Ltd, a company registered under Companies Act, 1956 having its head office at Phase IV, Industrial Area Mohali (Punjab), has merged with Mahindra & Mahindra Limited. Said company (Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.) has its registered office at Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai, Swaraj Division is one of its divisions and one of its places of business is at Dar-ul-Owais, Rajbagh Srinagar Kashmir. Petitioner No.1 is proprietorship firm carrying on business of purchase and sale of Swaraj tractors and its spare parts and accessories whereas petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of the said firm so liable for the entire dealings of the said firm. 3. Petitioners had issued cheque bearing No.0248568 dated 22.12.2008, dawn on Union Bank of India, Mehsana Gujarat branch for an amount of Rs.80,00,000(Rupeeseighty lacs) in favour of erstwhile company (Punjab tractors)owards payment of the dues. The said cheque was presented by the respondent No.1 with its banker (J&K BankLtd. Air Cargo Branch, Srinagar), same was forwarded by the drawee bank but wasreturned by the drawer bank (Union Bank of India, Mehsana Gujarat) with the remark No Account. The drawee bank (J&K Bank) informed the respondent accordingly, soin short dishonour of cheque. The respondent No.1 through its counsel issued notice of demand on 12.8.2009 from Srinagar which was replied by the petitioners. Non paymentof the cheque amount despite demand prompted the respondents to file complaintunder Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 RPC. Samehas been filed by the company through its authorized representative Khurshid Ahmad Thakur in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and same has been assigned to the Court of Forest Magistrate, Srinagar who after recording statement of the complainant took the cognizance for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Dissatisfied and aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. 4. Dissatisfied and aggrieved thereof, instant petition has been filed. 4. Various contentions regarding the cheque in question being a security furnished at the instance of Sales Executive of the petitioner company and it is only in case of default, forfeiture of the security could arise, cheque was not issued by the petitioners in discharge of debt or liability, then the question of reply to the legal notice, are the matters which can be looked into during the course of trial. 5. The only important question which arises for determination is as to whether the Court at Srinagar has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and take cognizance thereof? 6. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner No.2, partnership concern, has been dealing with the sale and service of tractors supplied by respondent No.1 from time to time. Petitioner No.2 was appointed as dealer for sale of tractors for district Mehsana in Gujarat by respondent No.1 having its registered office at Mohali Punjab. The business transactions were carried out in Chandigarh or Mehsana. The orders were placed from Mehsana for supply of tractors. The presentation of the cheque at a place where collection bank is situated does not confer jurisdiction to the Court within whose jurisdiction collection bank is situated. In short, according to learned counsel, presentation of the cheque at collection bank will not give jurisdiction, it is only the Court within whose jurisdiction the drawee bank is situated, has jurisdiction. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment reported in (2001) 3 SCC 609 . 7. The second contention is that the notice has been issued from Srinagar but giving of notice from Srinagar does not confer jurisdiction to the Court at Srinagar. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 1168 and a judgment rendered by the Delhi High court in Criminal M. C. 1988, 1989 and 2373/2010 in the case captioned Mahika Enterprises and anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. decided on 01.10.2010. 8. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1715 of 2008 (Smt. Shamshad Begum Vs. B. Mohammad),2008(I) S. L.J. 57 and 2009 Cri. L. J. 1299. 9. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. decided on 01.10.2010. 8. In opposition, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgments rendered by the Honble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.1715 of 2008 (Smt. Shamshad Begum Vs. B. Mohammad),2008(I) S. L.J. 57 and 2009 Cri. L. J. 1299. 9. At the first instance it shall be quite relevant to quote para 14 and 15 of the judgment rendered by the Honble ApexCourt in the case captioned K. Bhaskaran Vs.Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another ( AIR 1999 SC 3762 ) : 14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the con-catenation 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. 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 5 different localities. But concatenation of all the above five is a sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In this context a reference to Section 178(d) of the Code is useful. It is extracted below: Where the offence consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 10. What is made clear is that the illustrative five components for the offence under Section 138 of the Act are not necessarily to be perpetrated at the same locality. Same could be done in different localities and it is the said situation which is taken care of by Section 178(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which would provide that the offencehich consists of several acts done in different local areas, can be enquired into or tried by the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. In the instant case cheque has been presented by payee to its banker (J&K Bank) for collection at Srinagar. In the instant case cheque has been presented by payee to its banker (J&K Bank) for collection at Srinagar. Notice of demand has also been issued from Srinagar as the company is carrying on business all over the country including at Srinagar, which means part of the cause of action has accrued at Srinagar in view of presentation of the cheque at Srinagar and the issuance of notice of demand from Srinagar. In the judgment rendered in Nazir Ahmad Kaboo Vs. Feroz Iqbal (2008 (I) S.L.J. 57), While relying on the above referred judgment of the Honble Apex Court, it was noticed that all the transactions have taken place at Sopore, notice of demand was also issued from Sopore, only the cheque was received back from drawer bank at Handwara and inthe same background it was held that the Court at Sopore had jurisdiction, the relief of quashment of proceedings, as such, was declined. The judgment reported in 2001(3) SCC 609 , is not of any help to the petitioners. In the reported judgment, the question for determination was as to whether the cheque had been presented within the prescribed period of six months. In the reported case respondent had presented the cheque to its banker i.e. State Bank of India, Raipur on 20.1.1998 which reached the drawer bank on 24.1.1998. The cheque was dated 21.7.1997, so admittedly after six months from the date it became payable. In the reported case, contention was that the time of six months is to reckon from the date cheque was presented by the drawee before its banker where as in opposition contention was that the time is to reckon from the date cheque is presented before the drawer bank. The Honble Apex Court while interpreting the word a bank and the bankhas ruled that the word the bankmeans the drawer bank, so the cheque presented either by the drawee personally or through its banker (collection bank) must reach (for presentation) to the drawer bank well within six months. It was noticed that the cheque had reached (presented) to the drawer bank after the expiry of six months. It was noticed that the cheque had reached (presented) to the drawer bank after the expiry of six months. In the said background it has been held that the non-presentation of the cheque to the drawer bank within the period specified would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. It shall be quite relevant to quote para 10 of the saidjudgment : 10. It, however, does not mean that the cheque is always to be presented to the drawers bank on which the cheque is issued. The payee of the cheque has the option topresent the cheque in any bank including the collecting bank where he has his account but to attract the criminal liability of the drawer of the cheque such collecting bank is obliged to present the cheque in the drawee or payee bank on which the cheque is drawn within the period of six months from the date on which it is shown to have been issued. In other words a cheque issue by (A) in favour of (B) drawn in a bank named (C) where the drawer has an account can be presented by the payee to the bank upon whichit is drawn i.e. (C) bank within a period of six months or present it to any other bank for collection of the cheque amount provided such other bank including the collecting bank presents the cheque for collection to (C) bank. The non presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank within the period specifiedin the section would absolve the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act, who shall otherwise may be liable to pay the cheque amount to the payee in a civil action initiated under the law. A combined reading of Section 3, 72 and 138 of the Act would leave no doubt in our mind that the law mandates the cheque to be presented at the bank on which it is drawn if the drawer is to be held criminally liable. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee. 11. Such presentation is necessarily to be made within six months at the bank on which the cheque is drawn, whether presented personally or through another bank, namely, the collecting bank of the payee. 11. Finally, it had been concluded that the cheque was not presented before the drawers bank within the statutory period of six months, the Criminal Court had no jurisdiction to issue the process. Resultantly, the judgment of the High Court was held to be contrary to law so was set aside. 12. In the instant case the cheque admittedly is dated 10.1.2009, the cheque had reached the drawer bank well before the expiry of six months as is clear from the memo issued by the Union Bank of India dated 16.6.2009. 13. In the judgment captioned M/S Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. Vs. M/S National Panasonic India Ltd. ( AIR 2009 SC 1168 ), the point for consideration was as to whether only act of giving of notice of demand would confer the jurisdiction to the Court within whose jurisdiction notice has been given. In the reported judgment the cheque was issued at Chandigarh, same was presented for encashment at Chandigarh, same wasalso dishonoured at Chandigarh, the complainant had issued notice of demand from New Delhi, same was served at Chandigarh, on failure to pay the amount within a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the letter, complaint was filed at Delhi. The contention was raised that the Court at Delhi had no jurisdiction. 14. In the reported judgment, the trial court while considering the submission about the jurisdiction has opined that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as admittedly notice was send by the complainant to the accused person from Delhi and the complainant is having its registered office at Delhi and they are carrying on business at Delhi, admittedly it is also evident from the record that the accused allegedly failed to make payment at Delhi as the demand was made from Delhi and the payment was to be made to the complainant at Delhi. In the reported judgment the Honble Apex court while referring to K. Bhaskarans case, noticed that the complaint- petition does not show that the cheque was presented at Delhi, the cheque was presumed to have been presented at Chandigarh, then the question arose as to whether sending of notice from Delhi itself would give rise to cause of action for taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Para 12 is quite apt to be quoted:12. Indisputably, the parties had been carrying on business at Chandigarh. The Head office of the complainant-respondent may be at Delhi but it has a branch office at Chandigarh. It is not in dispute that the transactions were carried on only from Chandigarh. It is furthermore not in dispute that the cheque was issued and presented at Chandigarh. The complaint petition is totally silent as to whether the said cheque was presented at Delhi. As indicated hereinbefore, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent contended that in fact the cheque was put in a drop box but as the payment was to be obtained from the Delhi bank, it was sent to Delhi. In support of the said contention, a purported certificate issued by the City Bank NA has been enclosed with the counter affidavit which reads as under:This is to confirm that M/S. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (NPI) having registered office at AB 11, Community Centre, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi110029 are maintaining a currentaccount No.2431009 with our bank at Jeevan Bharti Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001 only and not at any other place in India including Chandigarh. Further confirmed that CITI Bank has provided the facility for collection of cheques/demand drafts from branches of NPI located at various places/cities in India. However, all amounts of cheques/demand drafts so collected on behalf of National Panasonic India Private Limited are forwarded and debited/credited to the aforesaid current account No.24310009 without bank at Jeevan Bharti Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001. 15. However, all amounts of cheques/demand drafts so collected on behalf of National Panasonic India Private Limited are forwarded and debited/credited to the aforesaid current account No.24310009 without bank at Jeevan Bharti Building, 3, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001. 15. It was held in the facts and features of the said case that only giving of notice from Delhi would not confer jurisdiction to the Court at Delhi but in the case under consideration, it is admitted that the cheque was presented by the drawee at its bank (J&K Bank Air Cargo branch at Srinagar) and amount was to be received at Srinagar, then the notice of demand was also issued from Srinagar. In case only notice would have been issued from Srinagar, then the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court would squarely apply to the present case. 16. In the judgment as relied by the learned counsel captioned Mahika Enterprises and anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and anr. rendered by Delhi High court, the position was similar i.e. the cheque was presented for encashment by the payee with its banker at New Delhi and notice of demand was also issued from New Delhi, then the question was as to whether the Delhi Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. The Delhi High Court while relying on various judgments including AIR 2009 SC 1168 and also one judgment rendered in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Subash ChandBansal and Ors, in which Delhi Court had held that the court in whose territorial jurisdiction drawer bank is situated would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaintfinally ordered the complaint to be returned for its presentation before the competent forum. 17. With respects, I do not agree with the conclusion as drawn by the Delhi High Court because while relying on the judgment rendered by the Honble Apex court in AIR 2009 SC 1168 , what emerges is that the Honble Apex Court has held that only giving of notice from a particular place does not confer jurisdiction and in the said reported judgment Honble Apex Court has noticed that the complaint-petition was totally silent about the presentation of the cheque at Delhi and it was presumed that the cheque was presented at Chandigarh. In this case the position is clear i.e. the cheque had been presented by the payee with its banker at Srinagar and demand of notice was also given at Srinagar, therefore, while applying the ratio of the judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 1168 , the Court at Srinagar has jurisdiction to try the complaint. 18. In the view as taken, I am fortified by one more judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Smt. Shamshada Begum Vs. B. Mohammad ( AIR 2009 SC 1355 ) decided on 3.11.2008. in the reported judgment it is noticed that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bangalore and the parties lived in Mangalore, cheques were returned from the bank at Bangalore but prior to issuance of notice, the complainant had shifted his residence to Mangalore wherefrom he issued the notice and the reply was send to the complainant to the Mangalore address. It was contended that one of the components of the said offence i.e. notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding amount of the cheque was sent from Mangalore. The High Court noted that one of the components of the offence was giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount. The said action took place within Mangalore jurisdiction, therefore, the petition was without merit. The Honble Apex Court while noticing K. Bhaskarans case has held that 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. The Honble Apex Court while referring to K. Bhaskarans case quoted the said acts. It shall be quite relevant to quote para 7 and 8 of the saidjudgment: 19. As was noted in K. Bhaskars case (supra) the offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are components are as follows: (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. 20. 20. It is not necessary that 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 concatenation of all the above five acts is sine qua non for the completion of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. One more contention was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the complaint could not be presented by respondent No.1 through its representative. This contention has to be repelled. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant has to be a corporeal person capable of making physical presence. In case of the company, the company has to be de jure complainant and person (authorized agent) representing the company is a de facto complainant. In this context it shall be relevant to quote following passage from para 11 of the judgment captioned National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & others (2009 Cr. L. J. 1299): Thus in every complaint, where the complainant is an incorporeal body, there is a complainant de jure, and a complainant de facto. Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 200 provides that where the complainant is a public servant, it will not be necessary to examine the complainant and his witnesses. Where the complainant is an incorporeal body represented by one of its employees, the employee who is a public servant is the de facto complainant and in signing and presenting the complaint, he acts in the discharge of his official duties. Therefore, it follows that in such cases, the exemption under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 200 of the Code will be available.While summing up what emerges is that the petition is found to be devoid of merit, as such, dismissed along with connected CMP(s).