ORDER :

1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to invoke inherent powers of this Court for quashment of the proceedings of Criminal Case No.69351 of 2018 pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Negotiable Instrument Act) Court No.32, Ahmedabad and also to quash the order of summoning dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate.

2. The brief facts leading to the present case are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner No.1 is the partnership firm in the name and style as Sidharth Exports for the purpose of manufacturing the automobile parts and engaged in the export of the said products whereas, the petitioner No.2 is the partner of the firm.

2.2 The firm Sidharth Exports made a loan agreement bearing No.152532177 dated 31.07.2016 with Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. with personal finance, Delhi, Noida. The Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. financed the petitioner- firm a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs) vide its letter dated 31.07.2016.

2.3 The petitioner- firm had issued the security cheques for ECS purpose but, said cheques according to the petitioner- firm, have been misused by the respondent intentionally presenting them for encashment at Ahmedabad so as to create jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad.

2.4 It is also alleged that the petitioner- firm regularly paid the installment but, the Income Tax Department freezed the accounts of the petitioner – firm as per the income tax notice dated 12.02.2018 by which, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. and other bank accounts of the petitioner – firm have been freezed. The said action of freezing of the accounts is under challenge statutorily before a separate channel of appellate authority. However, after freezing the accounts, the petitioner – firm intimated the complainant bank by way of an e-mail regarding action taken by the Income Tax Department on 09.03.2018.

2.5 It is the grievance on the part of the petitioner- firm that knowing fully well the circumstances, the complainant Bank presented the security cheque bearing No.025414 putting the date and amount in its branch at Ahmedabad so that the complainant bank can show the jurisdiction by presenting the said cheque on 21.03.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,01,456/-. The same was returned with remarks 'funds insufficient'. It is further the grievance of the petitioner – firm that the monthly installment by the complainant bank is Rs.89,132/- whereas, the cheque amount is different from the amount of installment.

2.6 A notice came to be issued on 13.04.2018 which is mandatory prior to filing of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act).

3. It is the say of the petitioner that registered office of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. is at Bandra (East) Mumbai and its branch office is at Satellite, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad and, therefore, presentation of cheque at Ahmedabad branch cannot lead the jurisdiction to Ahmedabad Court.

4. A complaint came to be filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in May, 2018 against the present petitioners where, the Court has issued summons. On 23.07.2018, Court took cognizance against the petitioner as per Section 142 of the N.I. Act without application of mind.

5. According to the petitioner, under Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act, no jurisdiction arises at Ahmedabad because, mere presentation of the cheque for encashment cannot be treated to have given jurisdiction to the Court since provisions of the N.I. Act, Section 142(2) specifically provides that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by the Court within whose local jurisdiction (a) If the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the Bank where, the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated or (b) If the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the dra