R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order of District and Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 3rd February,2003 in CC No.1549 whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application of the accused questioning the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the complaint of the complainant.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was issued in Chandigarh. The place of business of the complainant is in Chandigarh. The place of business of the petitioners is also at Chandigarh and cheque was presented in Chandigarh also delivered and returned at Chandigarh. However, notice under Section 138 was sent from New Delhi. Counsel submits that majority of the acts which are necessary to constitute the offence were done in Chandigarh, even notice sent from Delhi was received in Chandigarh, thereforee, the Delhi Courts had not jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments.
3. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the Judgment of Supreme Court in : 1999CriLJ4606 K.Bhaskaran V. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, the Supreme Court has categorically, in para 16 thereof, stated 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 those five acts was done. It is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act.'
Having heard counsel for the parties and also having perused the Judgment under challenge, I hold that the judgment of the Supreme Court is applicable in all forest in this case.
CRL.M.C.1023/2003 is dismissed.