(1) CRI. APLN. 3468.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3468 OF 2010 Sandeep Sainath Lande Applicant VERSUS 1. Parvez Farooq Sayyed 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondents ..... Mr. P.P. Dawalkar, Advocate h/f. Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. D.V. Tele, A.P.P. for the Respondent/State. ..... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:­ 1. Heard learned Advocate for the applicant. The Application is under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 2. The applicant is accused involved in a private complaint filed for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The applicant alleges that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. It is contended that the trial Court should not have proceeded with the matter and the Application filed before the trial Court ought not to have been rejected. (2) CRI. APLN. 3468.2010 4. The learned Advocate for the applicant submits that absence of territorial jurisdiction is the main ground on which the present Application is filed. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the transaction occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that the cheque was issued in the territorial jurisdiction and was payable in the Co­operative bank branch at Shrirampur. The learned Judicial Magistrate noticed that the bank memo reveal that the cheque was presented to Nagar Urban Co­operative Bank at Ahmednagar and it was dishonoured within the jurisdiction of Ahmednagar. The learned Judicial Magistrate relied on Division Bench Judgment in "Preetha S. Babu, Ernakulam Vs. Voltas Ltd., Cochin and anr. 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 234" 5. Considering the above observations, the Application is dismissed. Sd/­ [V. R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp