the same, it is crystal clear that the cheque was delivered for collection through the account of the Complainant Bank with the ICICI Bank, Ranchi branch where the payee of the cheque i.e. the complainant-opposite party no.2 has been having an account. So, it is submitted that the court at Ranchi had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is then submitted that as all the ingredients required to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, i.e. issue of the cheque, dishonour of the cheque, failure of the drawer of the cheque to pay the amount of the cheque even after notice has been undisputed, hence, no illegality has been committed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. It is further submitted that the fire incident claim to have taken place in the premises of the petitioner or the Covid 19 pandemic or for that matter the poor financial condition of the petitioner, certainly cannot be a ground for quashing the entire criminal proceeding. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that prior to the amendment of the Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act by Section 3 of Act 26 of 2015 with retrospective effect from 15.06.2015 in the case of Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 , a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the return of the cheque by the drawee bank
