1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.519 OF 2010 Suresh Kumar Varma ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Ajay S. Jajodia for Petitioner Mr.D.R. More  APP for State. ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 21ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. The Petitioner who is the Original Complainant, is challenging the order passed by the Learned M.M., 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai in CC No. 0604095/SS/08. 2. By the said order, the Learned Magistrate has held that he does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the criminal complaint. The Learned Judge has also observed that though the point of jurisdiction was not raised by the accused, the Learned Magistrate noticed for the first time while dictating the judgment that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. 1 3. The Complainant, who is appearing in person submitted that the Learned Magistrate has erred in holding that he did not have jurisdiction to decide the case since part of the cause of action had arisen at Kalachowki. He submittd that the ratio of the judgment in the case of K.Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidyan Balan & Anr. 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1845 (S.C.) is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. He further urged that the ratio of the judgment in the case of Dipti Kumar Mohanti, Dist. Nayagarh, Orissa Vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, reported in 2009(5), Mh. L.J. 273 is also applicable to this case and also relied on a judgment in the case of Ahuja Dongre passed by this Court. 4. In my view, the learned Judge has clearly committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record. The Apex Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran (supra) has held that the Complainant may file complaints in any of the places where the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, the cheque was deposited at Kalachowky which was within the jurisdiction of the Court. In my view, the ratio of the judgment in the case Dipti Kumar (supra) would not apply to the present case. In the said case, though the entire cause of action had arisen in Orissa 1 merely because the notice was issued from Ahmednagar, the complaint was filed in Ahmednagar and in that context it was held in the said judgment that the Ahmednagar Court would not have jurisdiction merely because notice was issued from Ahmednagar, particularly when the goods were supplied in Orissa and the Respondent had branch at that place. The Impugned order, therefore, will have to be set aside and quashed. 5. The Learned Magistrate shall decide the case on merits and in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months. From paragraph 1 of the order, it can be seen that the arguments were over and the matter was kept for judgment. In fact, no objection has been raised by either parties regarding the jurisdiction to try and decide the case. 6. This being the position, the Complainant shall file the complaint which was returned to him and, thereafter, the Learned Magistrate shall decide the case on merits and in accordance with law. (V.M. KANADE J.)