K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. 1. This petition is filed by the accused in S. T. No. 1500 of 1994 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, to quash annexure I-complaint pending before that court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Annexure I-complaint is filed by the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner and the learned Magistrate has registered S. T. No. 1500 of 1994 against the petitioner after taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the petitioner. At that juncture the petitioner has filed this petition before this court to quash the complaint mainly on the ground that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, has no jurisdiction since no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of that court.
3. The petitioner has contended that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondent as alleged in the complaint was from the residence of the petitioner at Arangom Desom in Alakode Village within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Taliparamba, and, therefore, the complaint filed by the respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, is liable to be quashed since that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. This contention of the petitioner is not sustainable since it is clearly stated in para. 1 of annexure I-complaint that the petitioner received Rs. 30,000 from the respondent on February 8, 1994, and issued a cheque drawn on the Alakode branch of the Syndicate Bank dated March 8, 1994, from the house of the petitioner. The interpretation of the recitals made in para. 1 of the complaint sought to be placed by counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the amount was paid and the cheque was issued from the house of the petitioner in Alakode village, is not sustainable and not warranted from the clear recitals made in that paragraph of the complaint.
5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that even if the cheque is issued from the residence of the petitioner in Alakode village, the respondent has got cause of action to institute the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act at the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, since he had presented the cheque for encashment before the Kuruppanthara branch of the State Bank of Travancore, within the jurisdiction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action as contemplated under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered and the place where the creditor resides cannot be the place of payment contemplated in the Act unless and until there is clear indication to that effect either by express terms or by necessary implication. In support of this contention the counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of a single judge of this court in P.K. Muraleedharan v. C.K. Pareed [1992] 1 KLT 59 ; [1993] 76 Comp Cas 615.
7. But, in a subsequent decision in Anjllath Mohammed Kunhi v. K.K. Abdul Kajeed [1995] 2 KLT 900 (Ker) ; [1999] 98 Comp Cas 607, another single judge of this court has held that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that decision the learned single judge had relied upon the decision of a single judge of the Karnataka High Court in Pobathi Agencies v. State of Karnataka [1992] 73 Comp Cas 431 ; (1992) 1 KLT 393 wherein, after detailed consideration of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court observed as follows (page 434) :
"Therefore, in view of the provisions of Sections 178(b) and 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code the complaint can be filed in a court within the jurisdiction of which the cheque has been issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is not honoured."
8. The Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Madras High Court have also held that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the single judge of this court as well as the Karnataka, Madras and Punjab and Haryana High Courts to the effect that the court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
9. The argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that if it is held that the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque can file the complaint at any place where he presents the cheque for encashment, it will lead to untold miseries to the drawer of the cheque as it will necessitate to defend the case anywhere in India where the payee or the holder in due course presents the cheque for encashment and it will be against the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. But it has to be noted that the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are enacted by Parliament in order to maintain the credibility of commercial transactions and to avoid bouncing of cheques which will impede commercial transactions. If the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque is compelled to file complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act either at the place where the cheque was issued or the place where the drawer of the cheque failed to make payment of money, it will result in very grave prejudice to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque, which is a negotiable instrument changing hands. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted the hardships and disadvantages caused to the payee or the holder in due course will be much graver and outweigh the hardship that may be caused to the drawer of the cheque in repelling this contention. Hence, the above contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable.
10. In view of what is stated above, it is clear that the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the above petition filed to quash the complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vaikom, is of no merit and hence the same is dismissed.