Indermeet Kaur,J.

(1) On 16.7.2008 petitioners had been summoned on the charge sheet filed under Sections 420/469/471/120B of the IPC, Police Station Chitranjan Park. The petitioner no.1 is Punit Pruti, petitioner No.2 is Sameer Pruthi, both are the sons of petitioner no.3 Diwan Chand Pruthi. This order of summoning is the subject matter of the present petition.

(2) The undisputed facts are that Mr. L.R. Aggarwal and Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, directors, of M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. had business dealings with petitioner no.1 in real estate. The Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the HSIDC) floated a scheme for development of an Industrial Technology Park at Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. Petitioner no.1, Mr. LR. Aggarwal his son Rajesh Aggarwal and one Gurinder Singh Kamboj had agreed to form a company in the name of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. to be registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar, Punjab in order to prepare a project report for allotment of 10 acres of land for the development of this I.T. Park. A sum of Rs.50 lacs was arranged and deposited in favour of HSIDC, Panchkula pursuant to an application for allotment of land but the said application was rejected. The amount of Rs.50 lacs was refunded by the HISDC in the name of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. which had been incorporated in July 2006.

Parties thereafter desired that final accounts between them be settled and a post-dated cheque bearing no. 143403 dated 30.11.2006 for Rs.50 lacs drawn on the Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch was issued by petitioner no.l in favour of M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. The said cheque was, however, dishonoured and accordingly a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was filed by M/s Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd. against petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 which is pending disposal in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkatta. This complaint is dated 27.4.2007. On 14.7.2007 M/s Krishi Rasayana Export Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint against the petitioners herein namely Punit Pruthi, Sameer Pruthi and Diwan Chand Pruthi, petitioner nos.1 and 2 being the directors of M/s Krish Techno Park Pvt. Ltd. After investigation charge sheet was filed under Sections 420/469/471/120B of the IPC and cognizance was taken vide impugned order dated 16.7.2008.

(3) The facts as detailed supra are not in dispute.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order primarily on three grounds:

(a) It is submitted that the Delhi Courts have no jurisdiction to try the present complaint which is an FIR under Section 420/468/471/120B of the IPC; no cause of action had taken place in Delhi; the offer for allotment of land was made at Manesar by the HSIDC; the project report was submitted to the HSIDC at Panchkula; cheque of Rs.50 lacs was deposited with HSIDC, again outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi Courts; the proposal was also rejected by HSIDC which is again outside the jurisdiction of Delhi Courts. As such no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi; trial of the present proceedings are barred.

(b) The FIR is a gross abuse of the process of the court as a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the same cause of action has already been filed. The notice dated 01.3.2007 issued under Section 138 Negotiable Act does not whisper a word about any allegation of cheating; so also the subsequent complaint which is also silent on the said aspect. The belated complaint under Section 420 of the IPC in the month of July 2007 is an afterthought and a gross misuse of the process of the court only to harass and pressurize the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as G. Sagar Suri and Another v. State of U.P.1 and Others to substantiate the submission that where a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act had already been filed and no e