IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2032 of 2008 With Stay Application No.7795/2008 M/s Taj Tractors through Salamat Hussain partner of M/s Taj Tractors & Others. …….. Petitioners. Versus Axis Bank Ltd. And one another. …. Respondents Mr. M.C. Bansal & Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocates for the petitioners. None for the respondents. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. M.C. Bansal & Mr. Atul Kumar Banal, Advocates for the petitioners. None for the respondents. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners for seeking following reliefs: I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings, complaint no. 3151/55 of 2008 “Axis Bank Ltd. v/s M/s Taj Tractors and others” (annexure no. 1) filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai (respondents no.2). II. To issue any other writ, order or direction or grant such other further relief in favour of the petitioners which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. III. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent no.1 is Axis Bank Ltd. and respondent no.2 is the Metropolitan Magistrate of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai. The main challenge in this writ petition is the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2- Metropolitan Magistrate of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai, to try and entertain complaint no. 3151/55 of 2008 “Axis Bank Ltd. v/s M/s Taj Tractors and others” (annexure no. 1 to the petition) filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending before it, came up on the basis of a cheque no. CA/2002/BUF/GA No. 635902 signed by Salamat Hussain-petitioner no. 2 and drawn on the account maintained with Bank of Baroda branch Navin Mandi Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar (Uttarakhand) for payment of amount to U.T.I. Bank Ltd. Branch Rudrapur district Udham Singh Nagar and further prayed to quash the said complaint. The said averment has been made in para 1 (Ground A) of this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners have a right to challenge the complaint no. 3151/55 of 2008 titled as “Axis Bank Ltd. v/s M/s Taj Tractors and others” filed u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending before respondent no. 2-the Metropolitan Magistrate of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai under Section 482 Cr. P.C. before the High Court having the jurisdiction over respondent no. 2- Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai. The petitioners have also a remedy to file a revision petition before the Sessions Judge, Mumbai against his grievance. Thus, to file a revision petition before a competent Court of law as well as to file a petition under section 482 Cr.PC before Mumbai High Court is equally efficacious or adequate remedy available to the petitioners. As such, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter. The court of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai- respondent no.2 herein is not subordinate to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The supervisory jurisdiction has been conferred upon the subordinate courts as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners either would have to file a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or a writ petition for seeking quashment of the said complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction before the Mumbai High Court or the petitioners have a remedy under the provisions of Cr.P.C. to file a revision petition before Sessions Judge concerned, Mumbai having the jurisdiction of the area. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter as respondent no. 2 is not subordinate to the High Court of Uttarakhand. The relief sought in this petition to quash the said complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate of the court of Metropolitan Magistrate’s 28th Court (Esplanade) at Mumbai is not maintainable under the law, as such the petition devoids of merit and is dismissed in limine. The stay application stands disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 25.11.2008 V.K.