Judgment 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. It is not in dispute that the cheque bearing No.644280 dated 14.2.2013 in question was drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Bilaspur, which was a drawee Bank. Though, the cheque was presented to a Bank situated at Nagpur, it was dishonoured by the drawee Bank at Bilaspur. Therefore, this is a case which is covered squarely by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in 2014(6) Mh.L.J. 404. 5. In paragraph 20 of the Judgment in the case of Dashrath, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where the complaint case has not gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it would be necessary for the Court to return that case to the complainant for filing in appropriate Court in consonance with the exposition of the law made out in the Judgment. Therefore, this petition will have to be allowed by issuing a direction to the trial Court to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex court as appearing in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said case of Dashrath. 6. In the result, the criminal writ petition is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in the case of Dashrath (supra) particularly those directions appearing in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the said Judgment. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms.