IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 320 OF 2009 MRS. BABITA BALIAR SINGH & ANR. .. .. PETITIONERS Vs. ANAND RATHI FINANCIAL SERVICE LTD. & ANR. .. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A. S. Rao for the petitioner Mr. M. A. Desai for R-1 Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 6/7/2009 P.C. The petitioner has prayed that complaint CC No. 65/SW/08 pending before the Court of Learned Magistrate, 16th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, be quashed and set aside. 2. We have heard at considerable length Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rao has taken us through the complaint which is annexed to the petition. Mr. Rao submitted that the Jammu & Kashmir Police are investigating into the complaint filed by the petitioner in Jammu. As a counter-blast to that complaint the 1st respondent has filed the instant complaint. Mr. Rao submitted that the Mumbai Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the 1st respondent inasmuch as no part of the alleged transaction has taken place in Mumbai. 3. We have carefully perused the complaint filed by the petitioner as well as the complaint filed by the 1st respondent. Having perused the complaint filed by the 1st respondent, it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion that the complaint does not disclose any offence at all. So far as the contention regarding jurisdiction is concerned, learned counsel Mr. Rao has drawn our attention to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2083 of 2007 (Mohammad Shahjahan & Anr. v. Geo-chem Laboratories (P) Ltd. & Anr.) decided on 30/1/2008, where an objection was raised that all the transactions mentioned in the complaint and which are under scrutiny by the respondent company have taken place at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. The Division Bench after considering this argument observed that in the complaint nowhere it has been contended and stated that a part of cause of action has taken place in Mumbai. The Division Bench further observed that in the complaint vague allegations are made about forgery and defalcation. The Division Bench further observed that having gone through the complaint and material on record learned counsel for the respondent was helpless to point out as to how the court at Mumbai has jurisdiction. In our opinion, this judgment has no application to the facts of the case. 4. In the present case in the complaint in paragraph 8 it is clearly stated that major part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 16th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The instant complaint differs from the complaint which was before the Division Bench in Shahjahan’s case (supra). Secondly in this case a detailed affidavit is filed by Chetan Damji Nagda, the Authorized Representative / Senior Officer – Accounts of the 1st respondent. We deem it appropriate to quote paragraph 8 thereof. It reads as under: “8. I say and submit that it is an admitted position that various transactions executed by the Petitioner No. 1 were on BSE and NSE segments having their Registered Office at Mumbai, whereby due to various acts of omission and commission of the Petitioners, my Company having office at Mumbai is liable in Mumbai and has made good the losses at Mumbai to the Exchanges. I say and submit that in good faith, the accounts of the Petitioner No. 1 & 2 were opened believing them to be genuine investors and traders. I say and submit that Branch Office of my Company was only facilitating trading. However, in reality, transactions are executed on the main terminal at Mumbai whether it is BSE or NSE. I say and submit that for non-payment and/or towards non delivery of the Share Certificates, complaint for offence u/s. 113 (2), the cause of action arises where it is Head Office or Registered Office, and not the Court at a place where the Purchaser or Trader resides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H. V. Jairaman v/s. ICICI, A.I.R. 2000 SC 579, has taken a similar view. In the present matter, as can be seen from the facts of the case, it is more than apparent and clear that fraud is not on Branch office but is a fraud on the Company having Registered Office, as such in light of provisions of Section 179 of Cr. P.C., Courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint within the meaning of Section 420 r/w 120 B of I.P.C. Provision of Section 179 of Cr. P.C. Is reproduced herein below: 179 - “Offence triable where act is done or consequences ensures – when act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequences has ensured.” 5. In view of the above it is not possible for us to come to the conclusion at this stage that no part of the cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. In our opinion, no case is made out for quashing the complaint. The petition is dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (R. G. Ketkar, J.)