1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 924 OF 2010 R.P.K. Estates (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Binjussaria Super Foods and Fertilizers Pvt.Ltd.)& Ors. ...Petitioners vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.Harman Singh Khalsa for the Petitioners. Mr.S.V. Marwadi for the Original Complainant. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 10, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and Counsel for respondent no.2. 2 By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process and also the maintainability of the complaint in the 2 court of First Joint JMFC at Palghar. 3 A complaint was filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after the cheque which was allegedly issued by the petitioner therein and was drawn by the bank situated at Hyderabad where the said cheque was deposited according to respondent no.2 in his bank at Palghar where the said cheque was dishonoured. A statutory notice was given from Palghar and thereafter, the complaint was filed. 4 Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Palghar court did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the case. He submitted that the cheque was drawn at a bank situated at Hyderabad and it was also dishonoured by a bank at Hyderabad, the petitioners were carrying on business at Hyderabad, that being the position, merely because the notice was issued from Palghar, the court at Palghar did not have jurisdiction to try and decide the said 3 case. 5 On the other hand, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 relied on judgment of this court in the Criminal Writ Petition No.595/2010 in the case of Sharad Jhunjhunwala vs. Compuage Infocom Limited & Anr. dated 27th April, 2010 and also a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs.Preetha S. Babu vs. Voltas Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2010 ALL MR (Criminal) 1025 and also judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan reported in 1999 (4) All MR 452 (SC). 6 Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Harman Electronics Private Limited vs. M/s.National Panasonic India Limited, reported in 2009 (1) All MR 479 (SC). 4 7 In my view, the submission made by the Counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Bhaskaran (supra), the Court at Palghar would have jurisdiction to hear and decide the case since the cheque was presented within the jurisdiction of Palghar court. The ratio of the judgment in the case of M/s.Harman Electronics (supra), in my view, would not apply to the facts of the present case. This aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Preetha S. Babu (supra) and after taking into consideration judgment in K. Bhaskaran (supra) and M/s.Harman Electronic Private Limited. (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has distinguished the judgment in the case of M/s.Harman Electronics (supra). The ratio of the judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. Hence, there is no substance in the submission made by the petitioner. 8 Another grievance which is made by the 5 petitioners is that the petitioners are residing at Hyderabad. It is submitted that respondent no.2 has deliberately filed this complaint at Palghar court in order to harass the petitioners and to ensure that they are made to appear before the criminal court in Palghar on each and every day. The said apprehension is misconceived since there are several judgments of this court wherein it has been held that the Magistrate should not insist on the presence of the accused on each and every date. 9 The learned Magistrate, therefore, is directed that he should not insist on the presence of the accused - petitioners herein in the court at Palghar and if an application for exemption is made, the same may be considered favourably and only if it is absolutely necessary for the purpose of recording plea of the accused, at that time, the learned Magistrate may ask the accused to remain present. Apart from that, since it is a summary trial, the Magistrate can also record the plea of the accused 6 through his Advocate. The trial is expedited. The petitioner shall co-operate with the learned Magistrate and ensure that the trial is over, expeditiously. 10 With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE, J.)