1 Criminal Writ Petition No.640 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.640 OF 2011 Habib Ahmed S/o.Habib Abdulla, Age-41 years, Occu-Business and Agriculturist, R/o.Mangalwara, Near Sahi Masjid, Parbhani, Tal. And Dist. Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS Syed Atik S/o.Syed Mohammad Siddiqui, Age-56 years, Occu-Business, R/o.Bundelpura, Beed, Ta. and Dist. Beed. RESPONDENT Mr.P.B.Rakhunde h/f. Mr.S.S.Bhapkar, learned counsel for petitioner. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 19/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed in Criminal Rev.Appl.No.102/2010 by learned Sessions Judge, Beed, who by his order dated 03/05/2011, dismissed the said revision application and confirmed the order passed by the learned J.M.F.C. In SCC No.1783 of 2009 issuing process for an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the N.I.Act against the present applicant. 2. With the assistance of learned counsel for petitioner, perused the record. It appears that the respondent herein has filed 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.640 of 2011 Misc.Cri.Application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed against the present petitioner by way of complaint u/s. 138 of the N.I.Act alleging that the applicant and respondent have entered into the transaction about the sale of land situated at Parbhani and entered into an agreement to sale. It appears that instead of complying or performing specific performance of the said agreement, the petitioner herein, sold the land to the third party. After the respondent herein came to know about the alienation of the said land in question to the third party, has questioned about the earnest money to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- paid by the him to the present petitioner. It further appears that as the respondent herein has stated repeatedly demanding the earnest amount, a cheque was issued by the present petitioner of People’s Co-operative Bank Limited, Hingoli bearing No.122089 dated 15/08/2009. When the cheque was deposited by the respondent herein in his bankers at Beed, the cheque was returned with remark, “funds insufficient”. After issuing the statutory notice, complaint came to be lodged before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on which process was issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for an offence punishable u/s. 138 of the N.I.Act. 3. Order of issuance of process came to be challenged before the learned Sessions Court by way of Revision No.102/2011. The order was challenged on the ground that the learned C.J.M. has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint lodged by the present respondent. Learned Revisional Court had relied on the ratio led 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.640 of 2011 down by the Apex Court in the matter of K.Bhaskaran versus Shankaran, 1999 (7) SCC 510 wherein it is observed that, “drawing of the cheque, presentation of the cheque to the Bank, returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque and failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days are the components of the offence under section 138 of the said Act. If the aforesaid five different acts were done in five different localities, then any of the Courts within the jurisdiction of which any such act was done would have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the said Act.” The facts averred in the complaint discloses that the cheque was deposited by the respondent with his bankers at Beed. The cheque was returned as not honoured with the remark ‘funds insufficient’ at Beed. Notice was served from Beed and the applicant was called upon to make the payment at Beed. Thus these 3 components took place in the locality at Beed. In view of this, it is held by the learned Sessions Judge Beed that the learned C.J.M. Beed have not committed any error while passing an order of issuance of process. In view of this, no perversity is brought to the notice of this Court while rejecting the revision application by the learned Sessions Judge, Beed. Considering these aspects, writ petition, being sans merits, rejected even without issuing notice to the respondent. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/SEPT.2011/cri.w.p.640-11