IMPORTANT POINT
Court at place from where notice is
issued also assumes jurisdiction to entertain complaint regarding dishonoured of cheque.

J.H. Bhatia, J.—Notice was issued to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who are the original accused clearly indicating that this Writ Petition may be disposed of at the stage of admission. The notice was served as per the affidavit of service on behalf of the petitioner along with the postal receipts. However, none appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

2. To state in brief, the writ petitioner is the original complainant. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the original accused Nos.1, 2 and 3. Accused No.1 is a company situated at Alwar in Rajasthan. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were the directors of accused No.1 and both of them were residing at Delhi. The complainant used to purchase mustard oil and packing material and to hand over the same to the accused at Alwar for the purpose of packing the same. The accused company used to charge packing charges from the complainant and hand packed material to the complainant. However, some oil was not packed and oil and packing material were not returned to the complainant. Therefore, the accused were liable to pay the price of the remaining oil and packing material. To discharge that liability, the accused persons issued a cheque No.712059 dated, 27-1-2004 for Rs. 15,63,381/- drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Lawrence Road, Delhi Branch in favour of the complainant company. The cheque was signed by accused No.2. The complainant deposited the said cheque with its Bank at Mumbai for presentation to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Delhi Branch, for encashment. However, the drawee Bank returned the cheque on

1-5-2004 with the endorsement “funds insufficient”. After getting an intimation of the same, on 27-5-2007, the complainant issued a notice to the accused and asked to make payment of the amount of the cheque. However, they failed to make payment. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against all the three accused in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai. It was registered as Criminal Case No. SS/55/2005. Process was issued. Plea was recorded and the matter proceeded for trial. After the prosecution evidence was over and even the defence evidence was led by the accused persons, on the date when the case was fixed for arguments, the accused persons filed an application Exhibit 57 before the trial Court contending that the Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai had no jurisdiction cognizance of the complaint because no part of transaction had taken place in Mumbai and merely because the notice was issued-from Mumbai and that cheque was deposited with the complainant’s banker at Mumbai is not sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai. That application was opposed. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, by impugned order dated 8-2-2008 allowed that application holding that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai had no jurisdiction. He directed the complaint to be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court. That order is challenged in the present Writ Petition.

3. Mr. Marwadi, the learned Counsel for the complainant/petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court had committed error in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. According to him, consistent view had been taken by this Court that the payee can issue notice for payment of the cheque amount after the cheque is dishonoured from the place where the payee is living or carrying on business for gain and in case it is a company from the place where its registered office is situated. It is contended that the registered office of the complainant company is situated at Mumbai. The cheque was presented at Mumbai and after it was dishonoured, notice was issued from Mumbai for payment and it was expected that the accused would make payment of the amount to the complainant at Mumbai. It is contended that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Bhaskaran vs