1 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2699 OF 2010 M/s.Spam Realties & Infrastructure & Others ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another ...Respondents ----- Mr.A.H. Lohia i/b. Mr. Pankaj Dinesh Purway for Petitioners Mr.A.S.Shitole -APP for the State. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. He has tendered an application for amendment. 2. Application for amendment is allowed and the Petitioners are permitted to amend the application and annex the demand notice and reply to the demand notice. 3. The Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court Bandra, Mumbai in a complaint 2 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) filed by the Respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioners are challenging the said order of issuance of process on three grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the learned Magistrate does not have a jurisdiction to hear and decide the said complaint. It is submitted that only the notice was issued from Mumbai and the cheque was presented in Mumbai, however, it was dishonoured at Nagpur i.e. in the drawee bank. The second ground on which the said order is challenged is that according to the Petitioners, the demand notice which was sent by the Complainants is illegal since no demand has been made in respect of the cheque amount and on the other hand, it is submitted that the Complainants, in their demand notice had claimed the cheque amount of Rs.11 lacs with an interest at the rate of Rs.15% p.a. in lieu of the dishonour of the cheque. It is, therefore, submitted that the said demand notice itself is illegal. Thirdly, it is submitted that there are no averments in the complaint about the transaction stating that the cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on number of judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, which are as follows: 3 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) 1. Shri Ishar Alloy Steel Ltd. vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. [(2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 609] 2. M/s.Harman Electronic (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s.National Panasonic India Ltd. [AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1168] 3. Dipti Kumar Mohanty, Dist. Nayagarh, Orissa vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. [2009(5) Mh.L.J.] 4. Preetha S. Babu Desai, Ernakulum vs. Voltas Ltd., Chochin and Anr. [2010(3) Mh.L.J. 234] 5. Rahul Builders vs. Arihant Fertilizers & Chemicals and Anr. [(2008)2 Supreme Court Cases 321)] 6. K.R. Indira vs. Dr.G. Adinarayana [2003 AIR SCW 5501] 7. P.M. Philipose, Managing Partner vs. P.C. Chandy [2010 (1) DCR 417]. 4. In the present case, admittedly, the plea has already been recorded by the learned Magistrate. It is a well settled position in law that once a plea is recorded, thereafter, normally this Court should not interfere with the order of issuance of process. Even 4 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) otherwise, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 5. Perusal of the demand notice, clearly reveals that the amount of the cheque has been mentioned in the said notice and in the penaltimate paragraph, a demand has been made for the payment of Rs.11 lacs along with an interest at the rate of 15% in lieu of the dishonour of the cheque. In my view, it cannot be said that the said notice is illegal since a specific reference has been made to the amount of cheque viz. Rs.11 lacs. Merely because, thereafter, the accused been asked to pay interest at the rate of 15% in lieu of the dishonour of cheque that does not mean that the said demand is vague. The ratio of the judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, therefore, would not apply to the facts of the present case. 6. So far as the question of the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has been held in the case of K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. Reported in 1999 (4) ALL MR 452 that the complaint can be lodged at any of the 5 places where the cause of action has arisen viz. issuance of cheque, 5 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) depositing of cheque in the payee bank, dishonour of cheque, issuance of notice and cause of action where the transaction takes place. In K.Bhaskaran's case, it has been specifically laid down that at any of these 5 places, a complaint can be filed by the Complainant. In the present case, admitted position is that the complainant has deposited the cheque at Mumbai. He has registered office in Mumbai, the legal notice also has been issued from Mumbai and, therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate does not have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the case. Lastly, it is submitted that there are no averments regarding the cause of action in the complaint. 7. In my view, the complainants have stated in paragraph 4(I) of the complaint that he deposited the cheque in his bank i.e. Bank of Maharashtra, Charkop Bank, Mumbai on 5th June, 2009. He has also stated in paragraph 10 that the Complainants having their registered office at Linking Road, Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052. The complainants have also stated that they had given notice to the accused and the said packets had returned unclaimed. The said notice, therefore, was also issued from Mumbai. In my view, these averments are sufficient for the purpose of 6 (crim wp 2699 of 2010) deciding the cause of action in filing the complaint. 8. Hence, there is no merit in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks stay of this order. The request for stay is declined. (V.M. KANADE J.)