1 (Cr.WP 725/10) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.725 OF 2010 M/s. K.K. Polycolour India Ltd and others ..... Petitioners. V/s M/s Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd & Anr. ..... Respondents. Ms. Sonal i/b Ms. Smita Nitnawar for Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Shitole i/b APP for the State. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 21st July, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who was pleased to issue process on the complaint filed by the Respondent No.1 under section 138 of the Negotiable 2 (Cr.WP 725/10) Instruments Act. 3. It is submitted that the Court in Pune did not have jurisdiction to decide the said complaint since the Petitioner No.1 is having its Office at Chennai and Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are staying in Chennai and Respondent No.1 – Company is having its Office at Chennai. It is submitted that though the cheque was deposited by the complainant in Pune, since the Bank Account of the Petitioners was in Chennai, the said cheque was, therefore, finally presented by Payee Bank in Chennai and, therefore, Chennai Court would have jurisdiction to try and entertain the criminal complaint. 4. It is not possible to accept the said contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. The Division Bench of this Court in Mrs. Preetha S. Babu vs. Voltas Ltd. & Anr.1 has finally resolved the controversy. Apart from that, in view of the judgment in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan2 also the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. 5. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are exempted from appearing before the learned Magistrate and only if it is absolutely necessary the learned Magistrate may insist upon their presence. Plea of the Petitioners may also be recorded through their 1 2010 ALL MR (Criminal) 1025 2 1999 (4) ALL MR 452 (SC) 3 (Cr.WP 725/10) advocate in the event they given an undertaking that they will not dispute their identity. Statement under section 313 also may be recorded through their advocate if similar undertaking is given. 6. Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE, J.)