K. Ramakrishnan, J.

This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the accused in C/15006/2011 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta, to quash the proceedings under Section 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner was that, the second respondent herein entered into a hire purchase agreement dated 31.08.2009 with regard to the purchase of a 'Mahindra Scorpio' car. The entire transaction pertaining to the above financial transaction has taken place at Kochi, i.e., in State of Kerala. The petitioner handed over his signed blank cheques to the second respondent as security at their above mentioned office at Vyttila, Kochi. Due to financial exigencies, the petitioner committed default in making payments. The second respondent initiated steps for recovering the amounts due from the petitioner. The first respondent on whose behalf the second respondent acted filed a complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') and that appears to have been made over to 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Calcutta for disposal where it was numbered as C/15006/2011. The complaint filed by the first respondent is silent with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Calcutta. Further no part of the transaction has taken place at Calcutta and that court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complaint was filed before Calcutta court so as to pressurise the petitioner to pay the amount. So, he prayed for quashing Ext.P2 summons issued by that court and also to quash the complaint filed by the first respondent on the basis of the cheque issued by the petitioner. Hence the petition.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Public Prosecutor and the Special Public Prosecutor.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, this court has got jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending before another court outside the jurisdiction of this court, if it is satisfied that no part of the cause of action had taken place within the jurisdiction of that court. According to the counsel, the entire transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of Ernakulam court and no part of the transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of Calcutta court. According to him, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition to quash the proceedings. He had also relied on the decision reported in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SCC 2966 : 1999 ICO 5066 in support of his case.

5. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that since this court has no supervisory jurisdiction over the court where the case is pending, this court cannot entertain the writ petition to quash the proceedings pending before about under the supervision of another High Court. He had relied on the decisions reported in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bageeratha Engineering Ltd. And others, 2006 (3) SCC 658 : 2006 ICO 619, U.B.C. v. Govarthanam, 2005 (2) KLT 461 : 2005 ICO 6855, Meenakshi Sathish v. Southern Petrochemical Industries, 2007 (1) KLT 890 (FB). Further he had also argued that since the cheque was presented within the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint was filed that court gets jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and as such it cannot be said that no part of the transaction had taken place within the jurisdiction of that court. He had relied on the decision reported in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2013 (3) KLT 231 (SC) : 2013 ICO 1020 in support of the above submission. The learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the submission of the counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

6. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle transaction had taken place from Kochi. It is also in a way admitted by the petitioner that a blank sign