JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') for setting aside the summoning order dated 10.05.2018, passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in criminal complaint no. 9794/2018, titled as `P. Sampath v. M/s Malar Homes & Others' whereby the petitioners were summoned for the offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The petitioners herein have been arraigned as accused no. 3 to 5 in the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent no. 1. Brief facts of the present case, as disclosed from the complaint, are that accused no.2 to 5 had approached the complainant and had requested for grant of a loan of Rs. 70,00,000/- for the purpose of developing the land at Hastinapuram, Chennai. Accordingly, a loan agreement dated 20.03.2014 for Rs. 70,00,000/- was entered into between the complainant and accused no. 1 i.e. M/s. Malar Homes represented by accused no. 2. Subsequently, the accused persons had defaulted in payment of principal amount as well as the interest on the above-mentioned loan amount. After regular follow ups and requests by the complainant, the accused persons had issued a cheque bearing no. 452597 of Rs. 1,32,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Thirty-Two Lakhs) dated 06.02.2018, drawn on Punjab National Bank, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu to the complainant towards discharge of principal debt liability including accrued interest. Following that, the complainant had presented the said cheque for collection on 23.02.2018 at his bank i.e. HDFC Bank, Kailash Building, Kastura Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, but the same upon presentation, had returned unpaid on 26.02.2018. Thereafter, on 23.03.2018, the complainant had sent a legal notice to the accused persons to pay the dishonoured cheque amount within a period of 15 days of the receipt of legal notice. It is alleged that accused persons had sent a false reply dated 25.04.2018 to the legal notice of the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint was filed by the complainant and the accused persons were summoned by the learned MM vide summoning order dated 10.05.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that it is not clear as to whether the courts in Delhi have jurisdiction to try the present complaint as the respondent had not disclosed in his complaint as to where he had maintained his bank account, so as to attract territorial jurisdiction of the Trial court concerned. It is also argued that the present petitioners were not in-charge of day-to-day affairs of the accused firm, nor were they signatory to the cheque in question. It is argued that petitioner no. 2 and 3 had resigned much before the issuance of the cheque and, thus, they could not have been summoned by the learned MM. It is also argued that the impugned summoning order suffers from illegality as no inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has been conducted by the learned MM before issuing summons to the petitioners herein, who are residents of Tamil Nadu which is outside the jurisdiction of Delhi, which was compulsory as per judgment of Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, (2017)3 SCC 528. Lastly, it is stated that respondent has also concealed the fact that the loan amount was duly secured by way of mortgage and the respondent deliberately chose not to enforce to the same.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for complainant/respondent no. 1 argues that in the reply to legal notice dated 25.04.2018 issued on behalf of the accused persons,it has been mentioned and admitted that the petitioners were partners of the accused firm. It is stated that the present case is triable in the courts of Delhi only since the cheque in question had been dishonoured and had been returned unpaid in the bank situated in Delhi and within the jurisdiction of Court before which the case is