1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1224 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2009 Mr. Piyush Navinchandra Mehta ... Petitioner versus Branch Manager, kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.R.Raut,Advocate, with Mr. S.P.Mangesh Patel, Advocate, for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. A.T.Javeri, APP, for respondent No.4. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 8th June, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The contention of the petitioner, who is accused in the complaint filed by the respondents, is that the transaction between the petitioner and the respondents had taken place in Mumbai,but the respondents just to harass the petitioner, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Court at Kolkata which had no jurisdiction. 3. After some discussion and after taking instructionsW from his clients, 2 the learned Counsel for the respondents makes a statement that the respondents shall move an appropriate application before the Kolkata Court for return of the complaint so that it may be presented before the appropriate Court at Mumbai. The statement is accepted. In view of the statement, the proceedings in the criminal cases filed before the Kolkata Court against the petitioner shall remain stayed till such application for return of the complaint is moved and decided. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 4. As the Writ Petition itself is disposed of, Criminal Application no.244 of 2009 does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)