JUDGMENT The applicant is accused in Summary Criminal Complaint Case No.1161 of 2009 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondia. The applicant is resident of Nagpur and is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the complaint filed by the Non-applicant. The case of the Non-applicant/the complaint is that the applicant is close relative of the non-applicant. Both of them had cordial relations. The non-applicant used to visit the applicant frequently at Nagpur. The applicant is an Estate Agent. He had suggested the non-applicant to buy a plot situated at Beltarodi, Post : Pipla (Hudkeshwar), Nagpur. Accordingly the non-applicant had purchased a plot. After about six months, there was increase in the property rates. The applicant, therefore, with consent of the non-applicant had sold the said plot for Rs.9.5 lacs. It was purchased for Rs.7.5 lacs. As such, there was profit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The profit amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was agreed to be paid to the non-applicant by the applicant. It is alleged by the non-applicant that the applicant failed to pay the said amount. He, therefore, gave a cheque of Rs.2,00,000/-, drawn on Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd., Khamla Branch, Nagpur. The cheque was deposited by the non-applicant in Bank of India, Rail Toli Branch, Gondia. It was, however, dishonoured by the bankers of the non-applicant. The non-applicant, therefore, issued a statutory notice on 6th October, 2009, which was returned as unclaimed on 27th October, 2009. The complaint was filed within statutory period. On filing of the complaint by the non-applicant a summons had been issued to the applicant. The applicant prays that the applicant moved the trial Court for discharge on the ground that the trial Court at Gondia had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint field by the non-applicant. The learned Magistrate, after hearing both the sides, came to a conclusion that the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported at 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 199, was not applicable to the present case and therefore, the trial Court rejected application for discharge. 2. The applicant/original accused has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings on the ground that Gondia Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. 3. The learned Advocate Mr. 2. The applicant/original accused has moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings on the ground that Gondia Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. 3. The learned Advocate Mr. Puri is heard on behalf of the applicant and Mr. Charlewar for respondent/non-applicant. 4. It was submitted by Mr. Puri that none of the five components which constitutes an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had taken place at Gondia. It is, therefore, contended that Gondia Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. The five components, which constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra). Paragraph 14 of the said judgment can be reproduced as under: "14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation 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." 5. Apart from what is said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 14, it is also said in the same judgment that, it is normally difficult to fix up a particular locality as the place of failure to pay the amount covered by the cheque. A place, for that purpose, would depend upon a variety of factors. It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business. 6. In the present case, it is not disputed that the complainant/non-applicant is ordinarily residing at Gondia and he had issued notice to the applicant to make payment at Gondia. The applicant failed to make payment and therefore, the complaint was filed at Gondia. What is necessary to be examined is as to whether the applicant was expected to make payment at Gondia. The applicant failed to make payment and therefore, the complaint was filed at Gondia. What is necessary to be examined is as to whether the applicant was expected to make payment at Gondia. If one examines transaction of purchase and sale of the land, it can be seen that the whole transaction had taken place at Nagpur. It is very obvious that the applicant was Estate Agent and he was assigned the work of purchase and sale by the non-applicant/original complainant. The plot had fetched Rs.2,00,000/- more than the price paid by the non-applicant. In fact, the applicant was supposed to pay the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the non-applicant immediately after the sale. He failed to make payment and instead had issued cheque. The cheque was also not honoured and therefore, the non-applicant was constrained to issue notice and to file complaint within the statutory period. 7. If the applicant had failed to pay the amount within a reasonable time after sale of plot, it obviously was his duty to make payment at Gondia. Similarly if the cheque issued by the applicant was dishonoured, ordinarily he was supposed to make payment to the non-applicant at Gondia. As such, in the present case, failure to make payment had occasioned at Gondia and therefore, in my considered opinion Gondia Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. 8. For the reasons recorded by me hereinabove, the application needs to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. The case shall be heard as expeditiously as possible by the learned Magistrate. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 20.06.2012. Application dismissed.