bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 332 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 332 OF 2008 Hikal Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.Subhash Jha i/by Law Global for the petitioner. Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the respondent State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court i.e. the Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The trial Court has returned the complaint to be filed in the proper Court having jurisdiction. According to the learned Magistrate, since the notice issued by the complainant mentions the address of the complainant company as Great Eastern Chambers, Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur, New Mumbai - 400 614, the 28th Court would have no jurisdiction. A bare perusal of the letter-head of the Company which is annexed at Exh.B (page 20), indicates that the registered office of the Company is 2 in Mumbai-400 021 and the 28th Esplanade Court would have jurisdiction. The learned Magistrate has erred in concluding that he had no jurisdiction. 2. In the case of Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Yashomala Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & ors. ors. ors. v/s Tata SSL Ltd. & anr., reported in 1998 v/s Tata SSL Ltd. & anr., reported in 1998 v/s Tata SSL Ltd. & anr., reported in 1998 Cri.L.J. Cri.L.J. Cri.L.J. 4350, 4350, 4350, the learned Single Judge of this Court, while considering what could be the territorial jurisdiction of the Court for filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act spelled out that, if part of the offence has occurred in one place and part in the other, Courts at both the places will have jurisdiction. It is also held that, when the money is to be paid to the person named in the instrument, payment to the company would be sufficient compliance of the proviso. This would necessarily mean that the institution of complaint will be restricted to the place where the registered office of the company is situated. 3. The cheque in question which has been dishonoured has been drawn in favour of the petitioner company on the Santacruz Branch, ICICI Bank Ltd. The registered office of the Company is at Nariman Point, Mumbai. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was in error in returning the complaint as once it is accepted that the 3 registered office was in the territory over which the 28th Esplanade Court has jurisdiction, that Court was bound to decide the complaint. 4. Writ petition allowed. 5. The order of the Metropolitan magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai is set aside and the complaint is restored to the file.