1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2007 Satpal Singh Gurdayal Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Indira Murudkar, Advocate, i/b. M/s. P.V.Nichani & Co., Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Mhaispurkar, APP, for the State/Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Rakesh Dave, Advocate, for respondent No.3. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE : 2nd July, 2008. DATE : 2nd July, 2008. DATE : 2nd July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner,who is impleaded as an accused in FIR registered as M.E.C.R.No.9 of 2005 for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.,based on the order passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Misc. Application No.112 of 2005. The petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR as well as the order dated 20th June, 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. One of the grounds raised in this petition is regarding the maintaiability of the complaint at Mumbai when the complainant-company i.e. M/s.SKM Bearing Private Limited has its works at Plot No.101, Bileswarpura, Taluka Kalol, District Mehsana, in the State of Gujarat. As per the petitioner if at all the complainant had decided to move the complaint against the petitioner, it ought to have been filed in Mehsana District in Gujarat and not at Mumbai. 2. The learnd Counsel for the respondent No.3 - original complainant submitted that the Administrative office of the complainant-company is located at Mumbai and therefore, the cheques were deposited in a Bank at Mumbai and these cheques came to be dishonoured. The learned Counsel admitted that there is no document even to, prima facie, show that the commercial transaction for supply of goods/material between the complainant and the present petitioner had taken place at Mumbai from the Administrative Office of the complainant-company and 3 if that be so, merely because the cheques were deposited in a Bank at Mumbai and they were not honoured cannot be a reason to either file an FIR with the Police Station at Mumbai or to file a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. He further submitted that he would advise his client to move the competent Court or the police station in Mehsana District of Gujarat and therefore, he requested for the investigation papers to be transferred by respondent No.2 to the concerned Police Station in Mehsana District. The learned APP has consented for the same and candidly submitted that the Police Station at Mumbai will have no hesitation in forwarding the investigation papers to the concerned Police Station if the complaint is presented by the complainant-company to the police station in Mehsana District of Gujarat. 3. We must note that the complaint by respondent No.3 has been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and FIR has been registered by respondent No.2 on the basis of the order passed by the said Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and not on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.3 with the respondent No.2 and, therefore, transfer of a case from the Court of the Metropolitn Magistrate at Mumbai to the Court at Gujarat cannot be done by this 4 Court.However, if the complainant-company files a complaint with the concerned Police Station in Mehsana District, as agreed by the learned APP, the respondent No.2 will forward the investigation papers to the said Police Station in Mehsana District and the complainant can approach the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai and apply for withdrawal of the complaint. 4. The petition is, therefore, disposed with liberty to the respodent No.3 to approach the concerned Police Station in Mehsana District with a complaint and to withdraw the complaint presently pending before the learned Magistrate at Mumbai. As stated by the learned APP, respondent No.2 shall forward investigation papers to the police station named by the respondent No.3 if he files a complaint with the said police station in Mehsana District. The respondent No.3 will apply for withdrawal of the case pending before the learned Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon as soon as the complaint is registered in the Police Station in Mehsana District. The interim order passed by this Court will continue to operate for a period of one month or till the complaint presently pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court at Girgaon is disposed as withdrawn, whichever is earlier. 5 (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)