1 1677.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1677 OF 2011 M/s.Intercon Infotech Pvt.Ltd. and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and another. ... Respondents. Kiran Kulkarni for the petitioners. D.R.More, APP for the State. Ghanshyam Upadhyay i/b. G.Agarwal for respondent No.2. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J. DATED : 22nd June 2011. P.C. : The petitioners have approached this Court on the ground that though the entire transactions have taken place at New Delhi, the complaint in question is filed in Mumbai on the ground that respondent No.2 has office in Mumbai. 2. The perusal of the complaint would reveal that the registered office of respondent No.2 is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which has issued process. Not only that but the cheque was presented for encashment and notices were issued from the area which is in territorial jurisdiction of the leaned Magistrate who has taken cognizance. In that view of the matter, in view of view taken by this Court in Hemlata Raghunath Pendharkar v. Jaswantsingh Rajaram Sonawane, I (2011) BC 241, no case is made out for interference. Writ petition is, thus, rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)