HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.P. No. 2999 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners 1 to 3/A1 to A3 along with another are accused of offence punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in STC No.102 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pulivendula, Kadapa District. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent/complainant gave hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused who were doing real estate business at Hyderabad and that for discharge of the same, the accused gave two post dated cheques for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and that when those two cheques were presented by the complainant for encashment, the same were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. When statutory notices were given to A1 to A4, A-2 received the said notice and did not give any reply nor complied with demand for repayment of hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/-. Notices addressed to A1, A3 and A-4 were returned. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that there is no supporting document like receipt or promissory note for the alleged borrowing of amount by the accused from the complainant and that in the absence of proof of legally enforceable debt payable by the accused, the complainant cannot maintain the complaint. For a hand loan, there is no possibility of any documentary proof like receipt or promissory note. It is for the complainant to prove the hand loan during the course of trial before the trial court, who will appreciate the evidence and find it out whether there was pre-existing legally enforceable liability payable by the accused. It being a question of fact, cannot be decided by this court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. Secondly, it is contended by the petitioners’ counsel that the entire transaction took place at Hyderabad and that the cheques were drawn on Andhra Bank, Kukatpally Branch, Hyderabad and that therefore, Pulivendula Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In para No.7 of the complaint, it is stated that the accused came to the complainant in December, 2006 requesting for hand loan of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the complainant provided financial aid of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused, who issued two cheques for Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. Thus, according to the complainant, cause of action for the case took place at his place. The complainant is a resident of Himakuntla village of Simhadripuram Mandal in Kadapa District. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that Pulivendula Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is for the accused to contravert the said allegation and prove otherwise during trial in the lower court. I do not find any valid or legal reasons to quash proceedings in this case. 4. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J 30-09-2010 Mjl/*