1 APPLN 1166/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1166 OF 2010 Mr. Ramesh S. Seth ..... Applicant. v/s State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...... Respondents. Milan Desai i/b Prashant Parsurampuria for the applicant. Mr. Shrikrishna Khandalwal for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 13th October, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the Respondent No.2 who is appearing in person. 2. Applicant is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai on a complaint filed by Respondent No.2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A process was issued on 21/9/2006. 3. The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that 2 APPLN 1166/10 procedure which is required to be followed under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the applicant is residing at Girgaon and the complaint has been filed in Mazgaon Court. He submitted that since the applicant is not residing within the jurisdiction of Mazgaon Court, the learned Magistrate ought to have postponed the issuance of process and should have held an inquiry as contemplated under section 202. 4. It is not possible to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The cheque was deposited at Bombay Central which is within the jurisdiction of Mazgaon Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon the Judgments in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. National Panasonic (India) Ltd.1 , Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre vs. State of Maharashtra2 and Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary3. In my view, ratio of the said judgments would not apply to the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that verification has not been properly recorded by the Magistrate. Perusal of the verification discloses that it was recorded on 21/9/2006 by the learned Magistrate and, thereafter, Petition has been filed in 2010. In any event, improper recording of verification is not a material irregularity and that does not vitiate the order of issuance of process. Hence both these submissions are without any substance. 1 2009 (1) ALL MR 479 2 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 3357 3 2010-AIR(SCW)-0-4064 3 APPLN 1166/10 5. Criminal Application is accordingly dismissed. Trial is expedited. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. 6. Issuance of certified copy is expedited. (V.M. KANADE, J.)