IMPORTANT POINT
It is up to Court to ascertain as to which Court will have jurisdiction over a particular offence.

T.V. Nalawade, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides by consent for final disposal.

2. The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 •of Constitution of India and also under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) by the accused from S.C.C. No. 2032/2010, which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. The case is filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I. Act”). The application at Ex. 9 was filed for dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner/accused and it is rejected by J.M.F.C. In the application at Ex.9, defence was taken that the cheque was given by way of security and it is misused by the complainant. The other defence of absence of service of statutory notice was also taken.

3. In the present proceedings, the accused has contended that the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad has no territorial jurisdiction in respect of offence described in the complaint. Some other grounds are also mentioned in the petition. In view of the nature of other defences taken, this Court made it clear that only the ground of territorial jurisdiction can be considered at this stage. In the present proceedings, a relief of quashing the proceeding of criminal case is claimed. The relief of setting aside the order made by J.M.F.C. at Ex. 9 is also claimed. Alternatively, the relief is claimed for giving a direction to J.M.F.C. to return the complaint to complainant on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

4. In view of the provisions of 462 of Cr.P.C., this Court made it clear to the petitioner/accused that the quashing of the proceeding on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction is not possible. In view of this circumstance, the advocate for the petitioner argued mainly for alternative relief like for direction to return the complaint to complainant by holding that the Court of J.M.F.C., Aurangabad, has no territorial jurisdiction over the offence.

5. The contentions made in the complaint show that the complainant company is a public limited company, having registered office at Chitegaon, Tahsil Paithan, District Aurangabad. Its branch offices are at various places in India including Aurangabad. The accused is proprietor of a private concern and he is doing business in Delhi. At paragraph No. 4 of the complaint, it is specifically contended that credit facility was given to the accused in Delhi branch of complainant company and as against this facility, goods were supplied to the accused. As against these transactions, the amount of Rs.5,09,643 was due from accused to the complainant. It is contended that in discharge of this liability, the cheque in question was issued by the accused. The cheque was drawn on the account of accused from a bank of Delhi. This cheque was presented for encashment by the complainant in H.D.F.C. Bank, Branch Aurangabad. When the cheque bounced, statutory notice came to be given from Aurangabad. In the notice the complainant asked the accused to make the payment of cheque amount at Aurangabad, but during the period prescribed by law, such payment was not made and so the complaint came to be filed.

6. It is the case of the complainant that there is agreement between parties that the dispute about such transactions will be subject to the jurisdiction of Aurangabad Court. According to the complainant, such condition is mentioned in invoice prepared during the transaction. It is also the case of the complainant that intimation of bouncing of cheque was received at Aurangabad. It is contended that as in the invoice there is aforesaid contention, as the cheque was deposited at Aurangabad, as the intimation of bouncing of cheque was received at Aurangabad, as statutory notice was given from Aurangabad and as in the statutory notice the accused was directed to make payment at Aurangabad, the Court from Aurangabad has jurisdiction over the offence. Copies o