1 (Cr.WP894/2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.894 OF 2010 M/s Online IT Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .....Petitioners. v/s M/s. SES Technologies Ltd. & Anr. ...... Respondents. Sandeep V. Marne for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Shinde APP for the State. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal for Respondent No.1. CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5th August, 2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2. Petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, Mumbai. It is submitted that the said court does not have jurisdiction to try and decide the said complaint particularly because (i) the goods were supplied by the Petitioners at Kerala, (ii) Respondent No.1 has its branch office at Ernakulam, Kerala, (iii) notices were issued in 2 (Cr.WP894/2010) Kerala, (iv) all previous cheques were deposited by Respondent No.1 in Kerala and only three cheques were deposited by Respondent No.1 in Mumbai. It is, therefore, submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to enter the said complaint. 3. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Harman Electronics Private Limited Vs. National Panasonic India Private Limited1, in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd vs. Jayaswals Neco Ltd2 and on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Online it Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State & Anr.3. He also relied upon the judgments of this Court in Shah and Modi Developers & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & anr.4 and in Dipti Kumar Mohanty & anr. vs. Videocon Industries Ltd. & anr.5 He further invited my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another6 and the Division Bench Judgment of this court in Preetha S. Babu, Ernakulum vs. Voltas Ltd. Cochin7 4. Relying on the Judgment in Shri Ishar Steels Ltd. (supra), it is submitted that in the said case the Apex Court has held that the cheque would be deemed to have been 1 (2009) 1 SCC 720 2 (2001) 3 SCC 609 3 Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Cri.M.C. 2695/2009 & Cri. M.A.9081/2009 4 2009(3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 81 5 2009(1) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 766 6 (1999) 7 SCC 510 7 2010(3) Mh.L.J. 234 3 (Cr.WP894/2010) presented only in the Branch on which it was drawn i.e a drawee bank. He submitted that the ratio of the said judgment has been accepted by the Delhi High Court in Online it Shoppe India Pvt. Ltd. (supra). He submitted that the Supreme Court in its judgment in Harman Electronics Private Limited (supra) has also taken the similar view. 5. It is not possible to accept the said submission. In the judgment in Shri Ishar Steels Ltd. (supra), the question which fell for consideration before the Apex Court was the question of limitation and not of jurisdiction and, in that case, the Apex Court held that the cheque even though it was deposited by the payee in his own bank, the cheque had to reach drawee bank within six months from the date of issuance of the said cheque. The ratio of the said judgment, therefore, would not cover cases where the issue of jurisdiction is raised. The Supreme Court in its judgment in K. Bhaskaran (supra) has clearly laid down that the plaint could be filed at any of the five places mentioned in the said judgment. Moreover the judgment in Harman Electronics Private Limited (supra) has been distinguished by Division Bench of this Court in Preetha S. Babu (supra). Therefore, in view of the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the ratio of the judgment in Harman Electronics Private Limited (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. Even in Shah and Modi Developers (supra) in which reliance was placed on the judgment in Harman Electronics Private Limited (supra) the application was filed under 4 (Cr.WP894/2010) section 407 of the Cr.P.C and, in the facts of the said case, the case was transferred from Nashik to Bombay. 6. Under these circumstances, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. In the result the following order is passed:- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. The bailable warrant issued by the learned Magistrate is set aside and quashed. The Petitioner may appear before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, however, the Petitioner may be exempted from appearing in the trial court. His plea also may be recorded through his advocate. The statement under section 313 also may be recorded in the manner provided under section 313 sub-clause (5) Cr.P.C.. The Petitioner, however, shall given an undertaking to the court that he shall not dispute his identity or the correctness of the answers given by his advocate to the Court. (ii) Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The Petitioners, however shall appear before the Magistrate on the next date and furnish a bond after the bail is granted to him. (V.M. KANADE, J.)