I could not find any direct citation on your query that the Court having Jurisdiction where Complaiant Reside is competant to try the Matter U/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
However, you may go through the following citation on the point of jurisdiction u/s. 138 which may help you to make your concept clear.
1) 2007 (1) DCR 440 KERALA HIGH COURT, HARIHARA PUTHRA SHARMA VS. STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
2) AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 3762, K. BHASKARAN VS. SANKARAN VAIDHYAN BALAN AND ANOTHER
3) AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1161, SHRI ISHAR ALLOYS STEELS LTD. VS. JAYASWALS NECO LTD.
4) 2007 CRI.L.J. 114 BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AHUJA NANDKISHORE DONGRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Referring the above citations, It can not be said that the Court is competant to try the Matter U/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act just becaus the Complaiant Resides there.
In the case of K. BHASKARAN (supra), para No. 14 Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that folowing are compopents of the said offence I1) 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 frawer 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. Further held in para 15 that it is not necessary that all the above five acts should have been perpetrated at the same locality. AND Held in para 16 that 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.
As the five acts mentioned in K. BHASKARAN (supra) may not be possible to be done at five different places refereing to the act No. 2 & 3, place can not be different (save and except at par cheque issued), being "the Bak" and "the drawee bank" are the same bank. Secondaly, the place of issuance of notice is not material but the place of service of notice is material to gather the jurisdiction, (as held in the case of M/s. HARMAN ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. Vs. M/s. NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA LTD.) and therefore mere issurance of notice not sufficient but there must be valid communication (service) of notice in order to raise cause of action. Again going through the Acts No. 4 & 5, mentioned above in the case of K. BHASKARAN, we can not say that these acts can be done at two different places, being the act No. 4 is required to be completed on service of notice.
If the cheque in question is payable at Par and "The Bank" i.e. the Drawee Bank has branch where the complainant resides, then that Court has Jurisdiction to try the matter.
I AM ALSO IN SEARCH OF CITATIONS ON THE POINT OF JURISDICTION Us. 138 of N. I. ACT, and require the best help of the friends....