1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.502 OF 2010 Amit Gulab Marathe ...Petitioner. v/s. The State and Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Vikas Shivarkar, ,adv. For the Petitioner. Mr. P.S.Hingorani, APP For the Respondent No.1/State. Shri Amit Sale, adv. For the R.No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 17, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 Petitioner is accused in 3 cases S.C.C.No.293 of 2008, SCC No.42 of 2009 and SCC No.43 of 2009 pending in the Court of J.M.F.C. Vita. All these cases are under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent no.2. Petitioner seeks transfer of all these cases to Pune where he resides at Pune. According to him, all these transactions had taken place at Pune and, therefore, J.M.F.C., Vita Sangli had no jurisdiction. Secondly, he contends that he has been harassed by the complainant as well as the learned Magistrate by issuing NBWs repeatedly and by rejecting application for exemption from personal appearance. 2 3 Admittedly, the respondent no.2/ complainant is residing at Vita Dist. Sangli. The cheque was issued by the accused/petitioner at Pune against his account maintained with the bank at Pune. Therefore, the cheque was expected to be encashed at Pune still when the cheque was dishonoured, notice was issued by the complainant from Sangli where he resides and thereafter payment was expected to be made at Sangli but the payment was not made. As held in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another (1999) 7 SCC 510 and several other cases, the Court within whose local jurisdiction, the complainant is situated and had issued notice and from where the payment was demanded but not made also gets territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention that J.M.F.C. Vita has no jurisdiction. 4 Out of the three cases, in SCC No.293 of 2008 prosecution evidence is already completed. Not only that even the accused has also examined defence witnesses. In SCC No.42 of 2009, complainant has already been cross-examined and thus, trial is in progress. If the cases are transferred, De-novo proceedings will have to be commenced because cases are being tried as summary cases. That will cause unnecessary inconvenience to the parties particularly the complainant and also it will be wastage of valuable time of the Court. On perusal of 3 the roznama, it appears that accused/petitioner was habitually remaining absent and, therefore, every time, the Magistrate was required to issue NBW against him. If the warrants were issued against him, fault lies with the petitioner himself and not with the Court. 5 In view of the above, I find no substance in the present petition. Therefore, petition stands dismissed. The trial Court shall expedite and dispose off all the three cases as early as possible. No adjournment shall be granted to the parties unless it is absolutely necessary. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)