1 wp nos.91-92-93-94-95-96-2011 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 91 OF 2011 Pawan Kumar Beriwal ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 92 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 93 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 94 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2011 M/s. Guru Krupa Tradworth Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2011 Giridharilal Agarwal ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ... Respondent Mr.Devidas Mitra i/by M/s. Legal Assistance for Petitioner. Mr.Yashpal Thakar i/by M/s. Paras Kuhad for Respondents. Mr. P.A. Pol, A.P.P. for State. 2 wp nos.91-92-93-94-95-96-2011 CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2011 P.C. 1. This is a common order in the above writ petitions which have been filed on the sole ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the proceedings concerned in six petitions have been filed has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. Respondent in all six petitions is the same i.e. Global Trade Finance Limited. The respondent had given loan facilities to the petitioners in repayment of which cheques in question had been issued by the petitioners. Out of six petitions, in three petitions the cheques have been presented in Mumbai and have been dishonoured there. In the proceedings in three other writ petitions, the cheques have been presented at Kolkata and the same have been dishonoured. The petitioners contend that the entire cause of action to file the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had taken place in Kolkata and therefore, the Court at Mumbai does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 3 wp nos.91-92-93-94-95-96-2011 Admittedly the registered office of the respondent is at Mumbai. In all six cases, statutory notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been issued from Mumbai and the notices have called upon the petitioners to make payment in Mumbai. The learned counsel for respondent no. 1 relying upon the decision of Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Application No. 1491 of 2010 in Global Trade Finance Limited Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. submits that in the identical facts of the case in all the proceedings filed by the very respondents, the sessions court had directed the Magistrate to return the complaint as it does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. That order came to be set aside by this court holding that as respondent has its registered office in Mumbai, cheques in other cases were deposited in Mumbai, the notices were issued from Mumbai, the agreements were executed in Mumbai and loan facility was sanctioned in Mumbai, the learned Magistrate has jurisdiction to try and decide the case. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this 4 wp nos.91-92-93-94-95-96-2011 court in Mrs. Preetha S. Babu Vs. Voltas Limited, 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 234 holding that in case of complainant having registered office in Mumbai and the statutory notice having issued from Mumbai, that the accused was called upon to make payment in Mumai, it would be difficult to hold that no part of cause of action arisen in Mumbai. He next relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran Versus Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3762 in support of his submission that as part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai, the court in Mumbai would have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit. The Apex Court has noted that offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The acts which are components of the said offence :(1) drawing of the cheque, (2) presentation of the cheque into the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer 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. 5 wp nos.91-92-93-94-95-96-2011 In all the six cases, as already observed, the respondents has its registered office in Mumbai. The statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amount have been sent from Mumbai and notices have called upon the petitioners to make payment in Mumbai. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. Hence, petitions are dismissed. [Judge]