1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This Application is filed by the applicant under Section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash and set aside the proceedings in Criminal Case No.882/SS/10 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Bandra, for the offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant-respondent No.1.

3. The complainant is a non-banking financial company registered under the Companies Act with its head office at Mumbai. It has also network to provide financial aid and loan. The applicant is a proprietor of M/s. Kinger India having its office at New Delhi. According to the complainant, the accused as proprietor of M/s. Kinger India approached the complainant for trade financial facilities. The complainant agreed to provide and sanction trade financial facilities to the accused upto maximum limit of Rs.4 crore vide sanction letter dated 26.9.2005. On the basis of that, agreements were entered into between the complainant and the accused on 26.9.2005 and 19.12.2007. Pursuant to the same, from October 2005, the complainant started disbursing funds to the accused. In discharge of his liability for repayment of the amounts, the accused issued in all 11 cheques dated 15.10.2009 for different amounts. Two cheques were drawn against the account of the accused maintained with Indian Bank, South Extension Branch, New Delhi, while remaining 9 cheques were issued against his account maintained with YES Bank Ltd., New Delhi Branch. The said cheques were presented for encashment through Axix Bank Ltd., BKC Branch, Mumbai. Out of them, two cheques were returned unpaid with endorsment "funds insufficient" by the drawee Bank, i.e. Indian Bank and remaining 9 cheques were returned by the drawee bank i.e. Yes Bank Ltd., New Delhi Branch with an endorsement "account closed". Inspite of service of the statutory notice, the accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount within the stipulated period. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate recorded verification statement of one Pragati B.Malle a senior officer of the complainant company. In that verification statement, he gave all the details. Relevant documents were also produced along with the complaint. The learned Magistrate issued process against the accused.

4. After appearance, the accused made an application under Sec. 201 Cr.P.C. contending that the accused is situated outside the local limits of the Magistrate and, therefore, the enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and as it was not held, the complaint was liable to be dismissed. It was also further contended that in view of the facts and circumstances, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction. After hearing the parties, the application made by the accused came to be rejected.

5. On perusal of the record, it appears that after issuance of process the accused appeared on 4.9.2010 and on the same day, his plea was recorded. The matter was adjourned for evidence. On 15.10.2010 affidavit in lieu of examination in chief was filed on behalf of the complainant. Thereafter, on 12.11.2010, the above referred application under Sec. 201 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent, as the trial has already commenced and it is not proper for this Court to interfere and the case should be allowed to proceed to its logical end.

6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused contended that the provisions of Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. have been held to be mandatory when it relates to the accused situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. For this purpose, the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon Capt. S.C.Mathur vs. Elektronik Lab. & Ors. 2010 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 385 wherein Mr.Justice S.C.Dharmadhikari h