IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P.NOs.1817 OF 2007 AND 1819 OF 2007. Date:05.02.2010 CRL.P.NO.1817 OF 2007:- Between:- K.Purushotham Reddy ..Petitioner/Accused And United Phosphorus Ltd., rep.by its Accountant and Power of Attorney holder, M.V.Jagannadha Rao and another. .. Respondents And CRL.P.NO.1819 OF 2007:- Between:- K.Purushotham Reddy ..Petitioner/Accused And United Phosphorus Ltd., rep.by its Accountant and Power of Attorney holder, M.V.Jagannadha Rao and another. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- These two petitions are filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing C.C.Nos.353 of 2006 and 358 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Guntur relating to offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The 1st respondent/complainant filed two cases in the lower court alleging that two cheques issued by the accused towards discharge of part of amount due in business transactions relating to supply of pesticides and seeds were dishonoured by banker of the accused for want of sufficient funds in account of the accused. After dishonour, there was exchange of notices between the complainant and the accused. It is contention of the accused that he gave five blank cheques to the complainant company at the time of starting of business as security and that taking advantage of possession of those blank cheques, the complainant could manage to present two of the same after filling them up. It is further contention of the accused that there was failure of crop in agricultural fields in which seeds supplied by the complainant did not germinate and also because of ineffectiveness of pesticides supplied by the complainant company and that therefore, agriculturists made several claims with the accused and that the complainant is liable to pay to all the ryots who suffered loss in their agriculture because of use of seeds and pesticides supplied by the complainant company and that the accused paid huge amounts to the ryots towards compensation which is liable to be reimbursed by the complainant company. With those allegations, the accused filed two civil suits in civil court at Proddatur of Kadapa district and they are stated to be pending. The question whether the cheques in question were given by the accused to the complainant company towards security during the course of business is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is a question which has to be decided by the trial Court after trial in which oral and documentary evidence to be let in by both the parties will be recorded. On that ground, the accused/petitioner is not entitled for any relief in these petitions. 3. It is then contended by the petitioner’s counsel that head office of the complainant company is located at Mumbai and branch office of the complainant company is at Hyderabad and business transactions with the accused took place at Proddatur in Kadapa district and that no part of the cause of action for filing the cases arose at Guntur. It appears that the cases were filed at Guntur because power of attorney holder of the complainant company is stated to be a resident of Guntur. The cheques were also not presented for encashment at Guntur and the cheques were also not given on any bank at Guntur. Simply because power of attorney holder of the complainant company is stated to be a resident of Guntur from where notices of dishonour of cheques were issued, it will not clothe Guntur court with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur should have applied mind before taking the complaints on file as to whether the Court at Guntur has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was not done by the Magistrate. Having regard to all facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Court at Proddatur alone has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain these two complaints. Simply because the Court at Guntur has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints, it cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings relating to the offences. It will only afford a ground for transfer of the cases from Guntur to Proddatur where cause of action for the offences occurred. 4. In the result, C.C.Nos.353 of 2006 and 358 of 2006 are transferred from the Court of IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Guntur to the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur in Kadapa district for disposal according to law. Both the petitions are ordered accordingly. _​_________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 5th February 2010 AMD