tC Respondent H!GK COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P.No.gSSofZOIO Petitioners 1. Sharma Timber Works, a partnership firm, having its office at 121, Beleghata Main Road, Kolkata - 700010. 2. Rohit Sharma, Son of Sri Umashankar Joshi, partner of Sharma Timber Worte of 121, Beleghata Main Road, Kolkata- 700010. 3. Raghevendra Joshi, Son of Umashankar Joshi, partner of Sharma Timber Works of 121, Beieghato Main Road.Koikata-700010. Versus M/s, PPS Enterorisss, a rsgisterad partnership firm, having its ofRce ^ 20, Durga College Comptex, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), represenfed by its authorized representetive Sri Ramashankar Bajpayee, son of Lats Durgashanksr Bajpayee of D-5, Mahamaya Vihar, Near Gayatri Nagar, Raipur, Chhatfisgarh. (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.) $SB: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma, j.) Present:- Mr.Pawan Kesharwani, counset forthe petitioners. Nons present for the respondent. QRDERtORAU (Passed on 28*n January, 2011) 1. By this pstition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitionere have prayed for quashment of criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrats First Class, Raipur in Crimina! Complaint Case No.686/2010 on the ground of territorialjurisdiction. 2. As per copy of the complaint, order datsd 6.7.2010 and ottier documents, the present petitioners are having their ofRcss at Kolkata, they entered into an agreement with the respondent and has issued a chequs of ? 879199.33 for paymentof debt/discharge of liability. Cheque was presented before the Bank of 1 Baroda at Kolkata, same was dishonored cn the ground of stop payment. Thereafter, after complying the formalit/ complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiabie tnstruments Act, 1881 ffor short the Act, A^T- § j6j *-. "G^. 1831') has been filed on behalf of the compiainantfrespondent before the Judidal Magistrat& First Class, Raipur on the ground that office of the complainant is sihjated at Raipur, therefore, fte compiainarrt/respondent is having territoriai jurisdiction to prosecute the petitioners at Raipur. After necessary inquiry, the tria! Court has registered the complaint under SecUon 138 of the Act, 1881 against the petitioners and has issued proceed against them. 3. Notice issued to Uie respondent has been served upon him, but no on®appeare on his behaff. No reprssenfation is made. 4. I have heard iearned counsel for the petitioners, pemsed the petiflon and documents appended thereto. 5. Leamed counset for the petitionere submits that in the present case as per allegation made in the complaint the petitionere are residing at Koikata, ttoy havs issued cheque, the respondent has presented the same ttiroughite banker and was dishonored at Kolkata, the respondent has issued notice to the petitioners whose ofRces are situated at Kolkata. The accused i.e. the peBtionere are residing at Koikata shows that entire cause of action of Uie present complaint arose only within the tsrritorial jurisdiction of the Court situated at Koikota and not within the temtorial jurisdiction ofthe Court situated at Raipur. Oniy on the ground of complalnant's office situate at Raipur does not give tsmtorial jurisdiction to the complainant/respondent. 6. Leamed counsel placed rsliance in the matter of Harman Etectronics Private Limited v. National Panasonic tndia Private Limited rsported in (2009) 1 SCC 720 in which the Supreme Court has heid that if the enfire cause of asstion relating to the offence arose at one piace, then filing of comptaint at different piaces, where cause of action does not arise, is not competent to try and proceed the offence not committed wittiin iis jurisdiction. 7. As per aiiegalion made in the complaint, entire offence has been committed within the territoriai jurisdiction of the Court situated at Koikata. Oniy the faet that office of the compiainant/respondent is situated at Raipur does not gh/e jurisdiction to the Court situated at Raipur. 8. Therefore, continuance of crimina! proceeding in Criminal Complaint Case No.686/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipurwould only amountto abuse of process of the Court. 9. Consequently, ttie petition is aliowed. Cnminat procesding pending tofore ttw Judicial Magistrate First Glass, Raipur in Criminal Complalnt Case No.686/2010 is hsreby quashed. — cj T.P.Sharnia Judge