1 wp no.3420.10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3420 OF 2010 M/s. Banga Staptya NirmanPvt.Ltd. and anr.... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. ... Respondents Mr. Devidas Mitra i/by M/s. Legal Assistance for Petitioner. Mr. Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2011 P.C. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and 482 of Cr.P.C.. is for quashing of the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 under section 138 read with 141, 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice of admission of the petition has been served upon respondent no.2 . The respondent no. 2 is absent despite of the notice. 2. The quashing of the proceedings is sought on two 2 wp no.3420.10 grounds, firstly that the entire amount in the two cheuqes has been paid over to respondent no.2 and secondly that the trial court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as all the acts constituting the complaint had taken place at Kolkata. In order to establish that the entire payment has been made to respondent no. 2, the petitioner relies upon the letter dated 5th February, 2010 a copy of which is annexed as Exh. B to the Petition. The letter merely states that cheque no. 611982 dated 20th February, 2010 in the sum of Rs.25,43,800/- had been issued to respondent no. 2 towards full and final payment against supply of Ready Mixed Concrete. It requested for return of three cheques dated 2nd December, 2009, 10th December, 2009 and 20th December, 2009 which are the cheques in question. The learned counsel draws attention to the company seal of respondent no. 2 on the acknowledgment of receipt of letter. There is nothing to indicate in the letter that the cheque offered by the petitioner was accepted by respondent no 2. There is no categorical averment in the petition that the petitioners have paid the entire amount in the cheques in 3 wp no.3420.10 question to respondent no.2. In view of this, the contentions raised by the petitioner will be available to it as defence in the trial court. As regards the claim of the petitioner of Court at Mumbai lacking territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, it will be sufficient to state that undisputedly statutory notice for the offence punishable under section 138 had been sent from Mumbai and notice required the petitioner to make payment at Mumbai. This means that some part of the acts constituting the offence had taken place in Mumbai. Hence, I find no merit in the petition for quashing of the proceedings. The petition is dismissed. [Judge]