IMPORTANT POINT
When the cheques issued were drawn on the Bank in Calcutta, all though sent to Bombay, and the cheques, were produced in Calcutta for encashment where those were dishonoured, if any offence u/s. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was committed, it was in Calcutta & not in Bombay.

N.K. Mitra, J. - In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged the Complaint Case No. 840/B of 1989 arising out of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 28th Court, Bombay, so far as the writ petitioners are concerned.

2. Shorn of all details, the facts as stated by the petitioners in the writ application inter alia, are that the petitioner No.1 is a Private Company and carries on business as Finance and Investment Company at 95, Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016, within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the petitioner No.2 is a shareholder and Director of the petitioner No.1 company. In the month of March, 1989, the respondent No.3 approached the petitioner No.1 for a loanandior advance of Rupees two lacs which was sanctioned after negotiation, and at the request of the respondent No.3, the petitioner No.1 issued two cheques of Rupees one lacs each in the name of the respondent No.2, under the signature of the petitioner No.2, on March 17,1 ?89, drawn on the Vijaya Bank at Shakespeare Sarani, Calcutta, with a request to deposit one cheque on 30th of March, 1989 and the other on the 10th of April, 1989. The petitioners have further stated in their writ application that the petitioners came to learn from the respondent No.3 that is had entered into an agreement with the respondent No.2 to purchase the shares of his company and also the technical know-how and other devises for the manufacture of medicines, which the company of the respondent No.2 used to manufacture, and as such, the respondent No.3 had requested the petitioners to make payment of Rupees two lacs to the respondent No.2 as aforesaid as part payment under the said agreement. However, the respondent No.3 did not provide the petitioner No.1 with the necessary securities in the matter after issuance of the aforesaid cheques and also informed subsequently, that such payment was not required to be made to the respondent No.2 and terminated the loan agreement with the petitioner No.1 on the ground that such loan was no longer necessary and as such, the petitioners did not arrange for the necessary funds for encashment of the aforesaid two cheques issued to the respondent No.2. On 17th May, 1989, the petitioner No.2 received a letter from the respondent No.2 (Annexure "B") with the information, that the aforesaid two cheques were returned unrealized by his bankere Standard Chartered Bank, Bombay. The petitioner No.1 by its letter dated 27th May, 1989 and 16th June, 1989 (collectively marked as Annexure "C") informed the respondent No.2 that on the request of the respondent No.3, the said two cheques were issued in favor of the respondent No.2, but as the respondent No. 3, subsequently instructed the petitioner No.1 not to make such payment and/or recalled its loan agreement with the petitioner No.1, the petitioner NO.1 did not make any arrangement for payment of the said two cheques and there was no privity of contract between the petitioners and the respondent No.2.

Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 had received the summons from the respondent NO.1 in February, 1991 together with a copy of the complaint in complaint Case No. 840/B of 1989 lodged by the respondent No.2, against the petitioners for their alleged offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Annexure "D").

3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid proceeding and prayed for quashing of the same so far as the petitioners are concerned, inter alia on the grounds, that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 (Annexure "D"), does not disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners and the petitioners had obtained an interim order on 15th March, 1989 when the writ application was moved.

Subsequently the respondent No.2 prayed for vacating the said interim order on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to entertain th