There is already a lengthy Supreme Court judgment earlier to the above placing jurisdiction where the payee's bank is located.

This is the HC single bench judgment while the SC judgment is  from THREE JUDGE DIVISION bench so later will prevail.

More ever what ever reasoning is taken in Bombay HC citation for submitting cheque at any place has been answered in detail by the SC Judgment..

Even otherwise AT PAR cheques are for payment at any branches of that bank and not for DIS HONOR at any  branch and so this plea can be taken by the accused and should go in revision if not allowed.

The Supreme Court judgment favors the Complainant (the payee of the cheque) rather than the accused (the drawer of the cheque) The payee can go to his local court.

The Point is HC - Mumbai has not technically violated the SC order, but the spirit of the SC order gets violated. Now it has become kind of discretionary, till SC comes to the rescue asap.

If there is conflict between a High Court judgment and a Supreme Court judgment the latter shall prevail.

The Supreme Court's decision is mainly I  suppose,  outcome of a situation where the complainant may harass the accused by filing cases against the accused at many places taking shelter of causes of actions where the cheques are deposited at different places where the complainant  has offices, however the SC has missed to take care of harassment to  the complainant  ,where  he is made to make a complaint at the place of the drawee bank of the accused where the bank of the accused  may be situated at far distant place of the complainant, there may also be  cases of cheques of the drawee Banks  placed at foreign countries  ? the decision of the Bombay HC appears to be more meaningful and workable as compared to Dasharaths  decision by SC.The legal world at present is under dilemma on this issue  and the SC is expected to reconsider the same 

The Hon SC is right. There is no safeguard to the honest drawer if complainant is allowed to file the case anywhere. SC has given option to complainant to move the criminal case near his jurisdiction, but S.138 can only be filed at the drawer bank place..

Even otherwise many IPC sections are getting violated due to improper interpretation of S.139, and Hon Apex Court must settle the same at the earliest.

SC has rightly observed that due to S.138/139 the creditor has become very careless, it is like this, let us keep our houses unlocked because law is there... What is the need of extending credit from Kanyakumari to a man sitting in Chandigarh based on just a cheque leaf.

Pl refer the below blog, where in I had taken this issue of pan India jurisdiction much before the SC pronounced its verdict in Aug 2014..

https://extreme-analysis.blogspot.in/2014/04/cheque-bounce-apparent-incorrect.html

"Complainant harassing the accused",  "honest drawer". These are terms which I do not understand in the context of cheque bouncing cases.

If a complainant receives a cheque with no cash backing who is harassing whom? If the complainant was receiving a charity he cannot use Section 138. It is always the vilely issuer of the cheque who is trying to cheat the complainant to whom the amount was due. He deserves no mercy.

And then the "honest drawer". How can you call one who issues a dud cheque an "honest drawer". If a cheque is worth its face value there is nothing to fear for the drawer of the cheque.

Banks / NBFCs

1. They collect blank cheque at the time of loan, they also take the property as mortgage... Now if the guy who has taken loan faces some financial hardship in due course, then should you call such drawer as dishonest ??  Civil remedy is there... Not criminal.

2. Friendly loan... This is shear non sense in 90% cases...

3. Security Blank Cheque.... Again this is out of dispute. What is the meaning of security cheque ?? Is it some kind of immovable or movable propertt ?? The cheque is not a cheque if amount is not mentioned. Where is the criminality ??

And who says, complainant is always Honest ?? I feel more than 50% cases in the system out of around 50 Lacs are dud cases.

Things done in anticipation of an event like issue of post-dated or undated cheques are not covered under Section 138. Advance of loans by banks and financing institutions will be covered by detailed agreements and terns and conditions. Post dated cheques will be only collaterals. Things mentioned in the terms and conditions get precedence over Section 138. Not adhering to terms and conditions will only be a civil case.

is this ruling still in force or the case has to be filed at the place of issue of cheque ?

Please state your case so that one can find out whether the case comes under 138.

supplied material from our delhi & mumbai branch to one party in banglore

he gave post dated cheque dt30.06.2014

cheque bounced

notice sent on 23.07.2014

notice recieved on 26.07.2014

notice period lapsed,no case filed

cheque presented again on 27.09.2014(with in three months of issue of cheque)

cheque bounced on 29.09.2014

now what to do ??