SUKHVINDER SINGH Vs. ICICI BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner Sukhvinder Singh against the order dated 12.5.2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Economic Offences), Jodhpur whereby, cognizance was taken against the petitioner for the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act and for quashing of the proceedings of the criminal case pending against the petitioner in that Court.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Chief Judicial i Magistrate, Jodhpur has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in this case. He contends that none of the parts of the cause of action in this case took place at Jodhpur so as to entitle the complainant to file the complaint at Jodhpur. He contends that the transaction between the parties took place at Punjab. The cheque in issue which was handed over by the petitioner to the complainant company was of ICICI Bank, Branch GT Road, Jalandhar. The complainant presented the cheque for collection at its Bank Branch at Punjab. The only justification for filing the complaint at Jodhpur is that the notice of demand was issued by the complainant through his Counsel at Jodhpur. Learned Counsel submits that the mere issuance of the notice of demand from Jodhpur would not entitle the complainant to have the complaint entertained at Jodhpur. He therefore, prays that the misc. petition be accepted and the proceedings of the complaint be quashed as having been filed in a Court not having jurisdiction.

(3.) Shri Hemant Jain learned Counsel appearing for the complainant respondent No. 2 refuted the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but he was also not in a position to dispute the fact that except for the issuance of the notice of demand from Jodhpur, none of the parts of the cause of action in relation to the bouncing of the cheque in question has occurred at Jodhpur.