1 81 wp.2460.10 ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2460 OF 2010 Anil Madhukar Shende. ... Petitioner Versus Satura Chhemicals, a Proprietary Concern and others. ... Respondents ----- Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b Mr. U.R.Mankapure for the Petitioner. Mr. M.Janardhan for Respondent No.1. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad i/b Mr. A.M.Kulkarni for Respondent No.3. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 03 rd October, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2 The Petitioner is accused No.4 in a complaint filed by Respondent No.1 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued against the Petitioner. The order of issue of process was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a revision application. The revision application was rejected on merits on 2 nd 2 81 wp.2460.10 March, 2009. Thereafter, on 25 th March, 2009, an application at Exhibit – 30 was made by the Petitioner before the learned Magistrate by contenting that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint and for acquitting the Petitioner. The learned Magistrate rejected the said application by holding that after the process was issued, the Court of the learned Magistrate was powerless to recall the order of issue of process. In the revision application preferred by the Petitioner, the order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed. 3 The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that on plain reading of the averments made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The prayer was made in the application at Exhibit – 30 made before the learned Magistrate was for dismissal of the complaint and for acquittal of the Petitioner. 3 81 wp.2460.10 4 The order of issue of process was challenged by by filling a revision application which has been rejected. In this petition, there is no challenge to the order issuing the process. Grant of the said application at Exhibit – 30 would have amounted to virtually recalling the order of issue of process, which the learned Magistrate was powerless to do so. 5 Hence, no fault can be found with the order of rejection of the application at Exhibit – 30. 6 It is, however, made clear that this Court has not made any final adjudication on the issue of territorial jurisdiction. 7 Subject to what is observed above, writ petition is rejected. [ A.S.OKA, J ]