1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRI.WRIT PETITION NO.361 OF 2008 (IBRAHIM KHAN AMIRNAWAZ KHAN. ..Vs.. MANOHAR RAMJI BAGDE) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri Laique Hussain , Advocate for Applicant. Shri K.V.Thomas, Advocate for Respondent/ State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : DECEMBER 05, 2008. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamptee on 20th May, 2008 below Exh.22 in Summary Criminal Case No.281/2006. It is petitioner's contention that the transaction did not at all take place within the jurisdiction of Kamptee Court and therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamptee had no business to proceed with the complaint. The petitioner principally relies on the judgment of this Court in Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006(6) AIR BOM. 201 which has been duly considered by the learned Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent raises preliminary objection to the tenability of this petition contending that when an alternate remedy is open to the petitioner the writ petition should not be entertained. 2 3. Now, the question, whether the alternate remedy is available to the petitioner or not, would not be free from doubt since in this case, the applicant-accused had applied for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction and order came to be passed on such application. There is no order directing framing of charge or issuance of process, which has been questioned and which could have been questioned by invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the transaction took place at Washim, where the accused was posted, stating that the money was paid to the petitioner at Washim. The petitioner had issued a cheque drawn at Yavatmal District Central Co-operative Bank, Wani Branch. This cheque was lodged by the complainant for realisation with complainant's banker at Nagpur and was returned for want of sufficient funds. Now, if the payment was made, according to the petitioner, at Washim, occasion for him to issue a cheque drawn on a Bank at Wani is not clear. In any case, a borrower has to repay the money at the place where the lender resides, since he has to make repayment. In Ahuja Nandkishor Dongre, only one aspect of five components of cause of action was explained by observing that “presentation” of a cheque means presentation to a banker on which the cheque is drawn. It does not lay down that other four components do not clothe a Court with jurisdiction. Since the complainant had demanded 3 payment of money by a notice from the place where the complainant undisputedly resides i.e. Kamptee, prima-facie it would be open for the Court at Kamptee to exercise jurisdiction, which is not excluded. 5. In view of this, the petition is misconceived and hence, dismissed. JUDGE RR.