1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1650 OF 2010 Mrs.Pournima w/o. Kishor Pendke ...Applicant vs. Ashok Manibhai Patel & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.R.R. Puri and Mrs.Neha Palshikar Bhide for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mrs.P.P. Bhosale, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 12, 2010 P.C. :- 1 The petitioner is challenging issuance of process by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaon in a complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2 After the process was issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, an application was filed by 2 the applicant herein for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the said court did not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint. Reply was filed by the complainant and the said application was opposed. The learned Magistrate after having heard both the sides dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this present application. 3 It is submitted that the Bank in respect of which the payment was allegedly made by the complainant is situated at Nagpur. The owner of the land is residing in Nagpur. It is submitted that the complainant wanted to invest his funds in landed property situated in and around Nagpur. It was, therefore, submitted that the cause of action had arisen in Nagpur and the present complaint filed in Mumbai, therefore, was not maintainable. In support of the said submission, reliance was placed on two judgments of the Supreme Court, one in the case of Dipti Kumar Mohanty and ors. v/s. Videocon 3 Industries Limited, Ahmednagar & Anr.. and the other in the case of M/s.Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s.National Panasonic India Ltd., reported in 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 280 (S.C.). 4 In my view, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the complaint clearly shows that the specific averment is made by the complainant that the son of the accused had made a representation to him in Mumbai with his mother. The accused was dealing in land in Nagpur and therefore, the accused approached him through her son at his office in Mumbai in or about September, 2007 and represented that she had got land in Nagpur and she would be able to get prime property either at Nagpur or on the outskirts of Nagpur. The complainant, therefore, gave cheques of Rs.15 lakhs, 10 lakhs and 25 lakhs aggregating to Rs.50 lakhs to the accused in Mumbai. It is also stated that the accused informed him that she would enter into an agreement 4 for sale within six months or else she would refund the said amount and four cheques aggregating to Rs. 50 lakhs were given to the complainant at Mumbai. When the agreement of sale could not be executed, the complainant deposited the four cheques in Mumbai which were dis-honoured. The notice was sent to the accused by E-mail from Bombay. The cheques were deposited in Bombay. Taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint, in my view, the Bombay Court has jurisdiction to try and decide the said complaint. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the cheques were paid for the land which was to be purchased by the complainant situated at Nagpur and therefore, the Nagpur court has jurisdiction, cannot be accepted. The ratio of the judgments on which reliance is placed by the applicant will not apply to the facts of the present case. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. No case is made out for interfering with the said order passed by the learned Magistrate by exercising the inherent 5 jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5 Application, therefore, is rejected. (V.M. KANADE, J.)