This Criminal Petition has been taken out under Section 428 Cr.P.C. by accused-N.Shanthi Lakshmi in C.C.No.742 of 2009 on the file of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, to quash the proceeding therein.

2. 2nd respondent-Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited is a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its registered office at 3-1-631, Vijaya Raghunandan Nagar, Karimnagar, A.P., and has been carrying on business in chit funds. It has branches all over the State and one such branch is situated at Nellore. The petitioner/accused joined as a subscriber in one of the chits of the 2nd respondent/Complainant at Nellore Branch. The total value of the chit is Rs.5,00,000/- and duration of the chit is 40 months. The petitioner/accused became the successful bidder of the chit having agreed to forgo Rs.2,24,000/- out of total chit amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. She received the prized amount. She issued an account payee cheque bearing No.205379, dated 10.10.2008, for Rs.88,945/-drawn on Indus Ind Bank Limited, Nellore Branch, towards arrears of chit amount. The 2nd respondent/complainant presented the cheque in its account at Union Bank of India, A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad Branch, Ranga Reddy District, for collection. The cheque came to be returned on 02.12.2008 with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent/complainant issued a legal notice on 15.12.2008 to the petitioner/accused calling upon her to pay the amount covered under the cheque in question. Since the petitioner/accused failed to make any payment despite receipt of notice on 30.12.2008, the 2nd respondent/complainant presented a complaint before X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 r/w.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, ‘the NI Act’) and registered the case as C.C.No.742 of 2009. Hence, this Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the accused in C.C.No.742 of 2009 to quash the proceedings therein.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that no part of cause of action for filing the complaint for the offence under Section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act against the petitioner/accused has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of X Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District and therefore, continuation of proceeding against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.742 of 2009 amounts to abuse of process of Court. According to the learned counsel, the entire chit transaction took place at Nellore and the cheque has been issued by the petitioner/accused at Nellore and the Bank of the petitioner/accused, on which cheque has been drawn, is situated at Nellore and the cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank at Nellore and therefore, it is only the Nellore Court which has jurisdiction and no other Court has jurisdiction. It is also contended that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.1322 of 2009 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, for recovery of the amounts, in which case, it is impermissible for the 2nd respondent/complainant to initiate criminal proceedings on the same set of facts in a different Court and that the 2nd respondent/complainant filed the complaint in the Court of X Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, to harass the petitioner/accused. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following cases:

1) Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. (2009 (1) SCC 720 = AIR 2009 SC 1168)

2) Surjeet Singh v. G.E. Capital Transport Financial Services (2010-ILRDLH-20-164)

3) Raj Travels & Tours Ltd. v. Destination of the World (subcontinent) Pvt. Ltd. (2011-ILRDLH-21-4170).

5. Learned couns