1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3367 OF 2009 Shri Deepak G. Thamke ...Petitioner. v. Shri Vikas N. Datar & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.K.S.Patil, adv. For the Petitioner. None for the Respondent No.1. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP for the Respondent No.2/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 23, 2010 P.C. 1 Respondent, who is original complainant, had filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alibag. Process was issued. Plea was recorded and even some evidence was recorded. However, the accused moved an application Exhibit 33 contending that Alibag Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. After hearing the parties, J.M.F.C., Alibag passed the order dated 18.7.2009 and held that Alibag Court did not have jurisdiction and the jurisdiction lies with the J.M.F.C. at Pen in the same district. Therefore, he directed that the complaint alongwith all the original documents be returned to the complainant for the presentation before the 2 appropriate Court. He also directed that R & P could also be forwarded to the Court at Pen if so required. In view of this order, complainant presented complaint alongwith all the original documents before the J.M.F.C., Pen, who issued process against the accused. Accused filed Criminal Revision Application No.86 of 2009 challenging the issuance of process by J.M.F.C., Pen. That revision application came to be dismissed by the Sessions Court at Alibag. Said order is challenged in the present petition. 2 After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the original accused, I am convinced that the accused is simply trying to harass the complainant, firstly, after some evidence was recorded, he challenged the jurisdiction of the Alibag Court and it was his own contention that the jurisdiction would be with Court at Pen where the accused himself resides. Having accepted the arguments, the learned J.M.F.C. returned all the documents on the basis of which process was previously issued by him. In view of the same material before him, the learned J.M.F.C. had no difficulty in issuing the process against the accused. I do not find any substance in the present petition challenging the order in the revision. 3 Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. 3 (J.H. BHATIA,J.)