1 Cri. W.P. 115 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No.115 Of 2011 Pradipkumar s/o Hukumchand Khiwansara Age 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture R/o Tondapur, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus Devgiri Nagri Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Aurangabad, Branch Fardapur, District Aurangabad Through its authorized Officer Manoj s/o Jagannath Pasare, Age 26 years, Occupation : Service R/o Sector-G, 63, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad. ... Respondent. -------- Shri. S.R. Dheple, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate, for the respondent. -------- CORAM: K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 24th JUNE 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard finally. Rule returnable forthwith. 2) The petitioner questions propriety of the order below Exhibit 13 in SCC No.8920 of 2007 dated 13-1-2011 recorded by 16th Joint Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad whereby the petitioner questioned jurisdiction to 2 Cri. W.P. 115 of 2011 the Court at Aurangabad to entertain complaint in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judge disagreed to the urge of the petitioner, consequently the writ. 3) The petitioner has allegedly availed loan of three different amounts on 3-5-2007, 4-5-2007 and 8-5-2007 from Pigmy Agent of the respondent – complainant at Tondapur, District Jalgaon. In discharge of the said liability a cheque, subject matter of the proceedings, dated 25-8-2007 was issued drawn on the Jalgaon District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch Tondapur. The said cheque was presented for encashment at the Aurangabad District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Branch at Fardapur, District Aurangabad. However, cheque was not honoured. Thereafter legal notice in terms of mandate was issued from Aurangabad on 8-10-2007 making the demand. Since there was failure, the action as showed above. 4) The prominent question that emerges in the present case is, the so called disbursement of the loan to the petitioner was not within the jurisdiction of Aurangabad. The complainant has its branch at Fardapur. The present dealing was with the branch at Fardapur. The cheque was drawn on Jalgaon District 3 Cri. W.P. 115 of 2011 Central Cooperative Bank Branch at Tondapur and it was presented for encashment at Fardapur Branch of the Aurangabad District Central Cooperative Bank. Mere issue of notice by Advocate residing at Aurangabad shall not be tested to the competence of the complainant to file the case at Aurangabad. 5) Learned counsel for the complainant submits that since the complainant’s Head Office is at Aurangabad, its officers reside at Aurangabad, therefore, the Court at Aurangabad has the jurisdiction. 6) The legal position does not support the complainant. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. V. National Panasonic India Ltd, 2009(2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 624 relying on the judgment in K. Bhaskaran v. Shanakran Vaidyyan Balan, 2000(5) Bom.C.R. 178 (S.C.) dealt with five contingencies in which the jurisdiction of Court has to be decided. 7) The Hon’ble Lordships of the Apex Court in the matter of K. Bhaskaran (supra) have observed that, the offence under section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the 4 Cri. W.P. 115 of 2011 concatenation of a number of acts, namely, (a) drawing of the cheque, (b) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (c) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (d) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount and (e) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. It was opined that if five different acts were done in five different localities, any one of the courts exercising jurisdiction in one of the five local areas can become the place of trial for the offence under section 138 of the Act and the complainant would be at liberty to file a complaint petition at any of those places. 8) However in the present case, barring issuance of notice, from Aurangabad dated 8-10-2007, nothing material has taken place between the petitioner and the complainant within the jurisdiction at Aurangabad. The notice was served to petitioner at Tondapur, Taluka Jamner, District Jalgaon. Consequently, the contention that the Court at Aurangabad has jurisdiction is ill founded. 9) Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment in the matter of Dr. Kiran Laxminarayan Maheshwari vs. Wilson Matthws D'Souza, 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1883 and in the matter of Vinod Laxman 5 Cri. W.P. 115 of 2011 Das Kinger v. M/s SBI Global Factors Ltd., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1893 to contend that there should be sufficient material for the Magistrate to come to conclusion that, it has the jurisdiction and since the learned Judge in the present case did not consider this aspect, the said judgment will not come to the assistance of the complainant. Reliance is also placed on a judgment in the matter of Rajiv Banga v. L and T Finance Co. Ltd., 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 1962. The learned Single Judge in para 12 has, by placing reliance to the above referred judgments, held that the complaint can be filed at the Court at which the cheque was issued or where the registered office of the complainant is situated. Here, indeed cause of action has taken place at Fardapur for all purposes. 10) Considering these aspects, lodgment of the complaint at the Court at Aurangabad was without jurisdiction. Hence the complaint be returned to the complainant for its presentation to the appropriate Court at Soigaon which covers village Fardapur. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The parties to appear before the learned Judge at Soigaon on 13th July 2011. Sd/- (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) rsl