ORDER 1. This application has been flied under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M. Pakur in P.C.R. Case No. 251 of 2005 whereby the Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioner that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. 2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint stating therein that he being the owner of M/s. Talreza Stone Works, Tilbhita, Pakur, entered into an agreement by way of deed of indenture of sale/transfer with the petitioner for selling the entire assets of M/s. Talreza Stone Works situated at Pakur for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Against the said consideration a post dated cheque bearing No. 608132 dated 30.4.2005 of Rs. 6.25.000/- was drawn in the name of the complainant on Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata which cheque was delivered at Pakur office of the complainant. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant on 12.7.2005 in the Andhra Bank, New Alipore Branch. On its deposit, the said cheque was sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Ballyganj Park Road Branch, Kolkata for collection but the said cheque got dishonored which was returned back to the complainant on 12.7.2005. Thereupon, a registered notice was sent requesting therein to make payment of the said amount but in spite of receiving notice nothing was c10ne and then a complaint was flied which was registered as P.C.R Case No. 251 of 2005. 3. After holding inquiry, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. 4. In course of trial, an application was filed under Section 177, Cr PC raising an issue that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action ever accrued to the petitioner at the place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Pakur. That objection was overruled by the Court below vide its order dated 9.3.2011 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. That objection was overruled by the Court below vide its order dated 9.3.2011 which is under challenge. 5. Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that from the averments made in the complaint as well as in indenture of sale/transfer, it would appear that the entire transactions were made at Kolkata and no part of cause of action fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Pakur, still case was lodged at Pakur, as a notice in terms of the provisions, as contained in Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, was sent from Pakur which will not give any jurisdiction to the Court at Pakur, still the Court rejected the objection and hence the impugned order is fit to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Md. Imran vs. State of Bihar and others, 2010 (1) East Cr C 94 (Pat). 7. As against this, Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, submits that it is not that only that Court will deal with the matter relating to offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in whose territorial jurisdiction that bank situates where the cheque on its deposit got dishonoured, rather the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act has different components and only when all these components when get completed, offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be said to have been committed and in this situation, if any of the components fell within the territorial jurisdiction of any Court, the Court will have jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 8. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, 2000 (1) East Cr C 168 (SC): AIR 1999 SC 3762 . Learned counsel by referring to the said decision submitted that specific averment is there in the complaint that the cheque was given at Pakur and as such, the Court at Pakur certainly does have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, the Court below has rightly overruled the objection taken by the petitioner and hence, this application is fit to bet set aside. 9. 9. In context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, one needs to take notice of different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with the matter relating to jurisdiction of the Court. The provision, as contained in Section 177 Cr PC, stipulating therein that every offence shall be tried by a Court within whose jurisdiction it was committed is not an unexceptional or unchangeable principle. Section 177 itself has been framed by the Legislature thoughtfully by using the preautionary word ordinarily to indicate that the rule is not invariable in all cases. Section 178 of the code suggests that if there is uncertainty as to where, among different localities, the offence would have been committed the trial can be had in a Court having jurisdiction over any of those localities. The provision has further widened the scope by stating that in case where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area the Court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Scope, as has been enunciated in Section 178, seems to have been further widened by the provision as contained in Section 179 of Cr. PC which reads as follows:- "179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues-When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued." 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, their Lordships in the ease of K. Bhaskaran (supra) has held as herein under:- "The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the con-catenation of a number of acts. Following are the actions 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." Further, it has been held as follows:- "It is not necessary that an 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." 11. Having said so, their Lordships came to the following conclusion:- "Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities anyone of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, the complainant can choose anyone of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which anyone of those five acts was done. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act." 12. Here in the instant case, it is the specific case, as has been averred in the complaint case, that the cheque was delivered to the complainant at his Pakur Office in presence of PWs. In that situation, the Court at Pakur does have certainly jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition filed by the complainant. Thus, the Court below never seems to have committed any legality in overruling the objection taken by the petitioner. In the case, referred to above by the petitioner, the facts are quite distinct where the Court found that all the acts such as drawing of cheque and other components mentioned in case of K. Bhaskaran (supra), fell at Kanpur and not at Patna and as such, observation made therein would not be applicable in the instant case. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and hence this application stands dismissed. Application dismissed.