* 1 * WPs.1291,1292,1293-2011 28.9.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1291 OF 2011 Shri. Anantrao Madhavrao Mahajan ......Petitioner V/S. Suresh Bhagwandas Kachhela & anr. ......Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1292 OF 2011 Shri. Anantrao Madhavrao Mahajan ......Petitioner V/S. Kum. Reshma Bhagwandas Kachhela & anr. ......Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1293 OF 2011 Shri. Anantrao Madhavrao Mahajan ......Petitioner V/S. Shri. Ravi Bhagwandas Kachhela & anr. ......Respondents * * * * Mr. Prashant Bhavake, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amey Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State-respondent no.2. CORAM :- R.G. KETKAR, J. 28 September, 2011. P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Bhavake, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned APP for the respondent no.2-State. * 2 * WPs.1291,1292,1293-2011 28.9.2011 2. By these petitions, the petitioner-original accused challenges the judgment and order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Nashik below Exhibit-56 in Summary Criminal Case No. 4431 of 2008. By that order, the application made by the petitioner under Section 201 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC”) was rejected. “ 3. Respondent no.1 filed complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act”) against the petitioner before “ the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik. On 26th June, 2008 the learned Magistrate issued process under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner thereafter filed application at Exhibit-31 on 17th September, 2009 inter-alia contending that the complaint instituted by respondent no. 1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Nashik was not maintainable as that Court has no jurisdiction to try the same. On this ground, the petitioner sought discharge in the case. By judgment and order dated 1st April, 2010 the learned Magistrate rejected the application. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner preferred Revision under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court, Nashik. By judgment and order dated 5th January, 2011, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed all the Revision Applications. He came to the conclusion that the Court at Nashik has jurisdiction to entertain the * 3 * WPs.1291,1292,1293-2011 28.9.2011 complaint or to take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 4. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the present application on 27th January, 2011 under Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. for returning the complaint with directions to respondent no.1 to file it in appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction. 5. The said application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on 20th April, 2011. Aggrieved by that order, the original accused has preferred these writ petitions. In support of his petitions, Mr. Bhavake, submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had prayed for discharge and in the present application, the petitioner is praying for return of the complaint for presentation to the appropriate Court. The learned Magistrate, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the issue of jurisdiction was concluded, whereas earlier the petitioner had filed application at Exhibit-31 for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C, the present application is filed under Section 201 for return of the complaint for presentation to the proper Court. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 supported the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel * 4 * WPs.1291,1292,1293-2011 28.9.2011 appearing for the parties. In paragraph-6 of the impugned order, the learned Magistrate relied upon Section 362 of CrPC to hold that the Court cannot review its own order. The Court while deciding the earlier application under Section 245 of the Cr.P.C. held that the Court at Nashik has jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and the said order was confirmed in revision by the Sessions Court. The said order of the Sessions Court was not challenged further and therefore it attained finality. It was further observed that the matter was for defence evidence since 21st August, 2010 and the petitioner-accused is trying to drag the matter by filing application inspite of the fact that the point of jurisdiction was already decided by the Court. The learned Magistrate, therefore, rejected the application on the ground that it is not maintainable. 8. I do not find that the learned Magistrate committed any error while passing the order, particularly when as noted earlier, the petitioner had raised the issue of jurisdiction which was decided against the petitioner. Aggrieved by that decision, the petitioner also carried the matter in revision, which was also dismissed. I therefore do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed. [R.G. KETKAR, J]