1 Cri-A-341-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 341 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 342 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 343 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 344 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 346 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 347 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 348 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 349 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 350 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATIN NO. 351 OF 2011 CRIMNIAL APPLICATION NO. 352 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 353 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.354 OF 2011 1. Mr. Jambu Kumar Jain, ) R/o No.491, Jawahar Marg, ) Siyaganj, Indore (MP) ) 2. Mr. Prafull Kumar Jain, ) R/o. No.22, Santha Bazaar ) Indore 452001, MP. ).. Petitioners (Orig.accused Nos.4 & 5) Versus 1. TATA Capital Limited ) having its registered office at ) One Forbes, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, ) Fort, Mumbai 400 001. ) 2 Cri-A-341-11.sxw 2. Nanesh Foods Limited (formerly known ) as Samta Foods Limited) ) 22, Santha Bazaar,Indore 452 002. ) 3. Dilip Kumar Jain, Director ) 22, Santha Bazaar, Indore 452 002 ) 4. Pradeep Kumar Jain, Director ) 22, Santha Bazaar, Indore 452 002. ) 5. Samarthmal Jain, (now deceased) ) 22, Santha Bazaar, Indore 452 002. ) 6. State of Maharashtra ) 1st floor, PWD Builing, High Court, ) Bombay. ) Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar a/w Mr. Arun Arora, Atman Mehta & Sharandeep Garcha i/b. Haresh Mehta &Co.,Advocates, for the applicants. Mr. Subodh Desai,Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. V.B.Konde Deshmukh, APP, for the respondent No.6 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 4th May, 2011. JUDGMENT: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this group of applications filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the 3 Cri-A-341-11.sxw processes issued by by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicants in different complaint cases, are sought to be quashed on the ground that the Magistrate at Mumbai has no jurisdiction. 3. The respondent No.1/complainant filed several complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.2 company, which is accused No.1, and its directors, who are the remaining accused persons. It was alleged that the respondent No.2 company, having obtained cash credit facility, term loan facility and working capital loan facilty from the complainant, had issued certain cheques in discharge of certain liabilities, but all those cheques were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Inspite of service of statutory notice demanding payment of the cheque amounts, the accused persons failed to make the payment and,therefore, the complaints came to be filed by the complainant, who is having head office at Mumbai, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier, Mumbai. 4. According to the applicants, whole of the contract had taken place at Indore. The complainant has a network of branches throughout the country, including at Indore. The cheques were issued and drawn by the accused company 4 Cri-A-341-11.sxw on its account maintained with Andhra Bank, Jawahar Nagar Branch at Indore and the cheques were prsented and dishonoured also at Indore. It is contended that only the notices demanding the cheques were issued from Mumbai where the head office of the complainant is situated. It is contended that merely because the head office is situated at Mumbai and notice was issued from Mumbai, the Magistrate at Mumbai does not get jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. 5. The above facts are not in dispute. Except that the complainant had issued the notices to the accused persons from Mumbai, no part of the transaction had taken place at Mumbai. Admittedly, the complainant has a network of branches all over the country, including at Indore and through that branch the whole transaction had taken place. The case is squarely covered by M/s. Harman Electroncs (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 280 (S.C.). The learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant could not point out any material on the basis of which the Magistrate at Mumbai could have jurisdiction to entertain all these complaints. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, all these Applications are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The process issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai is hereby quashed. The 5 Cri-A-341-11.sxw Metropolitan Magistrate shall within three weeks from this day return the complaints to the complainant for presentation before the competent Court having jurisdiction and the complainant may file the complaints before the Magistrate having jurisdiction within three weeks thereafter. If the complaint is taken back and presented within the stipulated period, the accused shall not take objection on the ground of limitation. The complainant shall be at liberty to move the Metropolitan Magistrate for refund of Court fee and if such an application is moved, he shall decide as per law. Rule made absolute accordingly. 7. Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)