1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal writ Petition No. 34 of 2011 Madhukar v. Suhas and anr ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.C. Bhalerao, Adv for petitioner Mr A.A. Naik, Adv for respdt no. 1 Coram: A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 14th June 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. 2, Petitioner after putting in appearance made application for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction. Learned Magistrate rejected that application and it is that order dated 26.2.2010 which is subject-matter of challenge in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint is silent about cause of action and since the cheques were payable by the Bank at Goregaon (E), Mumbai, the Court at Yavatmal cannot have jurisdiction. He further contends that no transaction had taken place at Yavatmal. 4. Position is no more res-integra. In Smt Shamshad Begum v. B. Mohammed reported in 2009 Cri.L.J. 1304, the Apex Court has held that 2 the complainant can choose either of the courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts were done. On the basis of that decision of the Apex Court, this Court in Preetha v. Voltas Ltd reported in 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 234 has held in favour of the complainant. In Preetha’s case (supra) this Court has held that the complaint can be filed at the place where collecting Bank is situated. It is further observed that cheque can be presented at collecting bank of payee. In the present case, complainant presented the cheque to his bankers at Yavatmal and since the collecting bank is located at Yavatmal, complaint filed at Yavatmal court is maintenable. In other words, the Court concerned at Yavatmal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint of complainant/ respondent no.1. 5. Hence, application of the petitioner for dismissal of complaint for want of jurisdiction has been rightly rejected by the learned Magistrate. No interference is called for. Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. Judge. hsj