JUDGMENT :- Accused Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre has filed this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, taking exception to the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras in Criminal Case No.856/2005, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected applicant's application at Exh.51, challenging jurisdiction of the Court of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of complaint filed by Non-applicant No.2 Dashrath Rathod-original complainant.

2. The facts relevant for determination of questions raised in this application, as unfolded from the arguments advanced on behalf of both the learned counsel for accused and the complainant, are as under:

3. Complainant Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod is resident of village Soyjana, Tah. Manora, District : Wasim. He was serving as driver in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation at Bhandara. The accused is resident of Bhandara. Since the complainant was serving at Bhandara and was on friendly relations with the accused, on a request by the accused for a hand loan, the complainant gave a sum of Rs.35,000/- as hand loan to the accused. The accused issued three cheques of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/payable on 7th of August, September and October of the year 2004 towards repayment of this hand loan. These cheques were drawn on Bank of India, Bhandara Branch. The complainant presented these cheques for encashment on 27th January, 2005 at Digras Branch of Yavatmal Urban Co-operative Bank. Inquires by the complainant revealed that the cheques had been returned by Bank of India, Bhandara with the endorsement that the account was closed. The complainant, therefore, caused notice to be issued on 2nd March, 2005 through Adv. Ramesh N. Datir, resident of Digras, District; Yavatmal, calling upon the accused to pay the amount of cheques. Notice was received by the accused on 10th March, 2005. The accused however, failed to pay amounts of cheques and did not even care to reply. The complainant therefore, filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digras, District: Yavatmal.

4. Process was issued and the accused appeared. Accused filed an application, praying for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction, on the ground that (i) complainant was not residing in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, (ii) the complainant was not working for gain within territorial jurisdiction of the Court and (iii) the transaction had taken place at Bhandara. After considering the arguments advanced, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, by order dated 18th October, 2005, rejected the application. Aggrieved thereby, the accused has invoked jurisdiction of this Court by present application, which was admitted by an order dated 7th December, 2005.

5. I have heard Adv. Muley, learned counsel for the applicant and Adv. Nemade, learned counsel for Non-applicant No.2, as also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of Court at Digras, the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He submitted that the cheques were admittedly issued at Bhandara in respect of the transaction of loan which had taken place at Bhandara, and were drawn on Bank of India, Bhandara Branch. The accused himself resides at Bhandara and the complainant is not shown to be resident within the jurisdiction of the Court of Magistrate at Digras. The Court at Digras thus had no causal connection with the lis. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the learned Magistrate was in error in entertaining the complaint and rejecting the application of the accused for dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction.

7. His learned adversary, on the other hand, submitted that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which provides for punishment for dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document