WP.3045-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3045 OF 2009 M/s. Bhawani Ispat Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Ms. Poonam Ankleshwaria i/b Mr. A. M. Chimalkar, for the Petitioners. Mrs. V. R. Bhonsale, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Girish B. Kedia & M. G. Agre, for Respondent No.2. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, for Respondent No.3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners for transferring the case filed by respondent No.2 in the Court of Dadra & Nagar Haveli Silvasa, under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the Courts at Thane where two other complaints have been filed by respondent No.2 under S. 138 of the Act against the present petitioners. It is submitted WP.3045-09 - 2 - that respondent No.2 for the purpose of harassing the petitioners has filed the complaints at Thane for dishonour of two cheques. However, the third case has been filed at Silvassa. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that Silvassa Court has no jurisdiction since the cheque was issued from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, having its branch at Thane. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of – (i) B. R. Gupta & Anr., Appellants Vs. Rohit Jain, Respondent [2007 Cri.L.J. 3724); (ii) M/s. Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd. [2009 AIR SCW 410]. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submits that on account of judgment of this Court in the case of – Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [2007 Cri. L.J. 115] , two complaints were filed at Thane. However, in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of – Mrs. Preetha S. Babu Vs. Voltas Ltd. & Anr. [2010 All M. R. (Cri.) 1025)], and more particularly observations made in paragraph 31 of the said judgment, third case was filed at Silvassa Court, since the cheque was deposited at Silvassa and dishonoured at Silvassa. 3. It is further submitted that so far as case at Silvassa is WP.3045-09 - 3 - concerned, since there is no pendency of cases in the said Court, the case will be over within a period of six months. It has been submitted that the civil suit has been filed by the petitioners in the Court at Silvassa, in which a prayer was made for granting stay to the criminal cases and after the application for stay was rejected, present petition has been filed for transfer, only to protract the trial. 4. In my view, it is not possible to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. No case is made out for transfer of cases from Silvassa to Thane since the cheque was deposited in the bank at Silvassa and was dishonoured there, therefore, the Silvassa Court would have jurisdiction to try and decide the said case. In any case, there is no pendency of cases in that Court and therefore, this case would be over within a short period. Lastly, the trial Court has also granted exemption from appearing in the proceeding. No hardship would be caused to the petitioners, if the relief as prayed is not granted. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]