SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 07.11.2014, whereby relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 Scale 97, the Trial Court held that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint and thereafter returned the complaint, filed by the petitioner, to be presented in the Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contending that cheque in the sum of Rs.6 crores, given by the respondent, when presented, had dishonoured.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Trial Court had erred in not appreciating that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Roopsingh Rathod (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case; as recording of the evidence had already commenced and the matter was at the stage of trial, as envisaged under Section 145(2) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and only those cases which had not reached the said stage were liable to be transferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the amendm