IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 OF 2007 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2075 OF 2007 Mohammed Illiyas Patel ....Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & anr....... Respondent. Shri C.K. Pendse & A.D.Gangal for the petitioner. Mrs. P.P.Shinde APP for State. Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar for Respondent no.2. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 DATED; 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.; P.C.; P.C.; 1. This is a writ petition calling in question the legality and validity of an order passed in revision by the Sessions Judge, rejecting the revision objecting to the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. 2. The respondent no.2 instituted a complaint under section 138 of N.I.Act in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court at Dadar alleging therein that he had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 20 lakhs to the petitioner and for repayment of the said amount, he had handed over two post dated cheques and on deposit of the cheques in the bank the same were dishonoured for the reasons "funds insufficient". After the process was issued, the petitioner appeared before the court and moved an application for dismissal of the complaint or return of the complaint for presentation to the proper court meaning thereby the court at Byculla. The trial court rejected the application by holding that the part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The revisional court has concurred with the view taken by the trial court. The distance between the two courts is less than 5 kms. Thus, it is not seriously disputed that no prejudice is caused to the present petitioner. In the absence of any prejudice being shown to have caused to the petitioner, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below which relate to the territorial jurisdiction. There is no patent illegality committed nor any prejudice is shown to have caused to the petitioner. Hence writ petition is dismissed. ...