1 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2935 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2936 OF 2010 Anjali Thakran .... Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents. Mrs. Mallika A. Ingale for the Petitioner. Mr. P.S. Hingorani, APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. Petitioner by this Petition is challenging the order dated 03/10/2009 passed by the Sessions Court, Bombay in Criminal Revision Application Nos.604 of 2009 and 605 of 2009 and the order dated 24/03/2009 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai and also for setting aside the order dated 26/03/2009 passed by the said Court. 2 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 3. Brief facts are as under:- 4. Two complaints were filed by Respondent No.2 herein in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Gurgaum, Mumbai under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In both the complaints, It is alleged that husband of the accused introduced the complainant to his wife and told her that his wife was dealing in buying and selling properties and was a property agent. Since the complainant was interested in buying property at Goa, she was shown the property situated at Torda in Goa. The said property was purchased by the complainant. Thereafter, the accused informed the complainant that there was another property at Mandrem in Goa. The accused informed the complainant that price of the property was Rs 70 lacs and that Rs 10 lacs was her commission as property agent. Accordingly, she paid the said amount in two installments of Rs 35 lacs and thereafter an amount of Rs 45 lacs was deposited in the account of the accused in South India Bank, Panjim Branch, Goa. Thereafter, however, in spite of payment of the said amount, the property was not conveyed in favour of the complainant. The accused gave two cheques dated 01/01/2007 for the amounts of Rs 35 lacs and Rs 10 lacs. Both the cheques were dishonoured after they were presented in the bank. 3 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 5. After a statutory notice was given, complaints were filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Trial Court issued process in both the complaints. Plea of the accused was recorded. The cross-examination commenced and the complainant was cross-examined on number of dates. The complainant was to return to USA on 28/03/2009. Instead of continuing the cross-examination of the complainant, application was made by the accused for return of the complaint on the ground that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Panasonic (India) Ltd.1 and other judgments of this Court. 6. The Trial Court, after perusing the record, observed that the transaction and correspondence had taken place at Mumbai; the disputed cheques were also deposited at Mumbai and, therefore, the Court held that it had absolute jurisdiction to try the case and the application was dismissed with costs. Thereafter, an application was made seeking adjournment of the matter on the ground that the accused wanted to challenge the order in the Sessions Court. However, the said application for adjournment was refused and the accused was asked to continue the cross- examination. However, Counsel for the accused refused to complete the cross examination of P.W.1. The matter was 1 2009 (1) ALL MR 479 4 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 kept on 26/3/2009. On that date also, application was made for adjournment which application was also rejected. This order was challenged by the applicant/accused in the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court, however, confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision application. 7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner vehemently urged that the learned Magistrate ought to have given some time to enable the Petitioner/accused to challenge the impugned order in the Sessions Court. She submitted that her application was rejected and an order of no cross was passed. She submitted that the Trial Court as well as the Sessions Court have erred in holding that Trial Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the dispute. She submitted that the complainant was permanently residing in USA and was ordinarily residing in Mumbai. She submitted that the entire transaction had taken place at Goa and, therefore, relying on the judgment in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd1 (supra) and on the judgment in Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra2, she submitted that Mumbai Court did not have jurisdiction. 8. There is no substance in the said submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Both the Courts below, after perusing the record, have 1 2009(1) ALL MR 470 2 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3357 5 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 clearly observed that the entire transaction had taken place at Mumbai; the cheques were deposited in the account of the complainant in Mumbai; a demand notice was also issued from Mumbai and, therefore, Mumbai Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the said dispute. Apart from that, plea of the Petitioner/accused is already recorded and trial has begun and the complainant was already cross- examined for four to five days and, thereafter, an application was filed for return of the complaint. 9. In my view, at this stage, it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the order of issuance of process since the trial has already begun. The Apex Court in cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also in cases under other offences of IPC has consistently taken a view that, ordinarily, once the trial has begun, High Court should not exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and interfere with the order of issuance of process. The proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are summary proceedings. In view of section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the plea is recorded and trial has begun, it should culminate in disposal of the trial. Therefore, on this ground also, it will not be possible to interfere with the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. 10. Apart from that, both the Courts have rightly held that 6 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 the said application is filed only to protract the proceedings. In the present case, trial was expedited by the Sessions Court and the accused had taken number of adjournments though the trial was expedited. The complainant had come from USA to depose before the Court and she was cross- examined on 8/10/2007, 10/10/2007, 13/10/2007, 14/10/2007 and 15/10/2007. Thereafter, several adjournments were taken by the accused. She was to return to USA and had a confirmed ticket to go back to USA on 28/03/2009. After the application for return of complaint was rejected by the Trial Court on 25/3/2009, the Counsel for the accused was asked to continue with the cross- examination of the complainant. However, the Counsel for the accused refused to continue with the cross-examination. The matter was kept thereafter on the next date on 26/3/2009 on which date an application was made for adjournment. The said application for adjournment was also refused and the Counsel for the accused refused to continue and complete the cross-examination of the complainant. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Magistrate has passed an order of no cross, therefore, is not correct. The order which is passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed by the applicant/accused for adjournment clearly reveals that Counsel for the applicant/accused, in fact, had refused to continue and complete the cross-examination of the complainant. Since the Counsel for the accused had refused 7 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10 to cross-examine the complainant, there was no question of passing an order of no cross and, by the said order, Trial Court was pleased to reject the application for adjournment. 11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that cross- examination of the complainant was not completed and that certain vital documents were to be brought on record and, therefore, it is urged that one more opportunity be given to the Petitioner/accused to cross-examine the complainant. This submission also cannot be accepted, taking into consideration the conduct of the accused who has protracted the trial on one pretext or the other. There is, therefore, no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. 12. Both these Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. Trial, however, is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.) 8 WP 2935.10 WP 2936.10