Sunil Gaur, J.

1. The question involved in the above-captioned eight petitions is of territorial jurisdiction. Petitioner had filed eight complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before a Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, against the Respondents regarding bouncing of cheques.

.2. Vide impugned orders of 12th January, 2009 and 25th February, 2009, trial court has dismissed Petitioners aforesaid complaints on the ground of territorial

.jurisdiction by relying upon a recent verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. National Panasonic India Ltd. reported in : 2009 CriLJ 1109 .

3. In the above-captioned first six petitions, Petitioners complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have not been entertained vide impugned order of 12th January, 2009, and have been returned to the Petitioner at the very first hearing, for being presented before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter of these criminal complaints. In the remaining above titled ten petitions, Respondents/ accused has been summoned but before the Respondents/accused could appear, these te