As far as the criminal complaint under 138 is concerned Y would have jurisdiction as the cheque was deposited at Y and bounced back at Y. For the purpose civil jurisdiction the details are not sufficient to decide it.
In the matter of K.Bhaskaran Versus Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999 (7) SCC 510 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 ) SC held 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.
16 Thus it is clear, if the five different acts were done in five different localities any one of the Courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. In other words, 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. As the amplitude stands so widened and so expansive it is an idle exercise to raise jurisdictional question regarding the offence under Section 138 of the Act “
