IMPORTANT POINT
In an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act payee could choose anyone of places of anyone of the component of offence to register this complaint.

P. Jyothimani, J.— In all these cases, the common point involved relates to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the Private Complaints given by the drawees in respect of cheques, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, “N.I. Act”) and also the power and jurisdiction of this Court in effecting transfer of those cases, which are pending outside the jurisdiction of this Court to the Courts within its jurisdiction.

2. Writ Appeal Nos. 1463 to 1469 of 2006 are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge passed in W. P. Nos. 34289 to 34295 of 2006. These are cases relating to un-numbered process in respect of the matters stated to have been initiated before the first respondent, Judicial Magistrate Class First, Raipur, Chhattishgarh State.

3. The case of the petitioners is that, they are having Tea factory at Katabetu, Nilgiris District. Even though they are not owning any Tea Plantation, the petitioners used to get supply of tea leaves from small growers of Tea Plantation in Nilgiris District and they are involved in manufacture of black tea. According to the petitioners, the second respondent is a licensed Tea Broker, who got licence from the Tea Board of India under the provisions of Tea Marketing Control Orders, 2003. The petitioners have marketed the tea manufactured by them through the second respondent, tea broker. On receipt of tea from the petitioners factory, the second respondent used to pay some advance and after the sale, the amount would be settled. In that process, the second respondent used to obtain blank cheques and blank pro-notes from the petitioners by way of security for there advance paid by him. It is the case of the petitioners that, the second respondent, who is not authorised to give any loan to tea manufacturers, used to give loan on the strength of the said blank cheques and blank promissory notes, and by that process, he exploited the financial needs and weakness of the petitioners, and charged exorbitant rate of interest. The interest charged by the second respondent is against the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003. That apart, it is the case of the petitioners that, in view of the mal-practices committed by the second respondent, they have incurred enormous loss and were unable to pay their debts to the Banks also.

3(a). It is also the case of the petitioners that they are having bank accounts in Corporation Bank, Coonoor and all are permanent residents, having business at Katabetu. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that the agreement between them and the second respondent was entered in Katabetu and all these years the payments were made only at Coonoor by the second respondent by way of cheques and the second respondent is a licensed broker, and got sales tax registration to do business only at Coonoor and he used to encash all the cheques issued by the petitioners at Gudalur. When certain misunderstanding arose between the petitioners and the second respondent, in order to harass the petitioners, the second respondent has presented the blank cheques issued by the petitioners for encashment in ICICI Bank, Chaubey Colony, Raipur, Chattishgarh, after filing the same.

3(b). It is the further case of the petitioners that, even though the second respondent is having account at Union Bank of India at Coonoor and he has been all these years presenting the cheques at Coonoor, only for the purpose of harassing the petitioners, presented the cheques at Chattishgarh. The cheques presented by the second respondent were dishonoured by the petitioners Bank. When the second respondent issued a notice, reply was sent by the petitioners. Now, the second respondent has filed case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act before the first respondent, about which summons have been received. It is, in these circumstances, the petitioners have filed the