JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - The compendium of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that respondent-complainant Harminder Singh son of Gurmeet Singh has filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against petitioner-accused Shashi Bhushan Shori son of late V.P.Shori for the commission of offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as “the NI Act”) and Section 420 IPC, inter-alia pleading that the cheque of the amount of Rs.1,91,000/- given by him (petitioner-accused) in discharge of his legal liability of payment of rent was dishonour on account of “payment stopped by the drawer” by Union Bank of India, Sector 70, Mohali. Not only that, the petitioner-accused did not make the payment, despite legal notice and thus he has committed the pointed offences. 2. Now the petitioner-accused has preferred the present petition to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of section 482 Cr.PC. 3. The case set up by the petitioner-accused, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the complainant has filed a false impugned complaint and the Court at Mohali did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain it. On the strength of aforesaid grounds, he sought to quash the impugned complaint (Annexure P1) in the manner described here-inabove. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the complainant has filed the false complaint and the Court at Mohali did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain it, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations in the complaint that the petitioner-accused was a tenant under the complainant and an amount of Rs.1,91,000/- was due as rent towards him (petitioner). In order to discharge his legal liability of payment of rent, he issued the cheque in question, which was dishonoured. 6. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations in the complaint that the petitioner-accused was a tenant under the complainant and an amount of Rs.1,91,000/- was due as rent towards him (petitioner). In order to discharge his legal liability of payment of rent, he issued the cheque in question, which was dishonoured. It is not a matter of dispute that the complainant presented the cheque in question in the Union Bank of India, Sector 70, Mohali for encashment, which was dishonoured. Thereafter, he issued a legal notice to petitioner-accused through his counsel, but still, he did not make the payment. Meaning thereby, the complainant has deposited the cheque in question for encashment at Mohali, which was dishonoured at Mohali and as he issued the legal notice from Mohali, therefore, the Court at Mohali has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This matter is no more res integra and is now well settled. 7. An identical question came to be decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in case K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another (1999) 7 SCC 510 , wherein, having interpreted the provisions of section 138 of NI Act, sections 178(3), 177 and 179 Cr.PC, it was ruled as under:- “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 the following five acts, the components of the offence, took place: (i) drawing of the cheque; (ii) presentation of the cheque to the bank; (iii) returning of the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; (iv) giving of notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; (v) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It may, therefore, be an idle exercise to question jurisdiction relating to this offence. High Court in appeal rightly set aside the finding of the trial court that it had no territorial jurisdiction because the cheque had been dishonoured in a different district, outside its jurisdiction. Further on facts, High Court rightly held that trial court had jurisdiction as the cheque had been issued at a shop within its jurisdiction.” 8. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by this Court in case M/s Rattan Industries Ltd. & Anr. Further on facts, High Court rightly held that trial court had jurisdiction as the cheque had been issued at a shop within its jurisdiction.” 8. Not only that, the same very view was again reiterated by this Court in case M/s Rattan Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Shruti Gupta, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2917] : decided on 3.9.2012, vide CRM No. M-26943 of 2012. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments “mutatis mutandis” is applicable to the facts of the present case and is the complete answer to the problem in hand and the contrary contentions of learned counsel for petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main complaint case, as there is no merit, therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed as such. 10. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the complaint (Annexure P1), as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for its quashment in this relevant direction. ---------0.B.S.0------------