ORDER :

1. Instant misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the order dated 26.02.2018 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate No. 9, Jodhpur Metropolitan rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 142 (1) & 142(2) of the N.I. Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under section 138 of the N.I. Act before Additional Civil Judge(JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan. The Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I) Act Cases) No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan, took cognizance for offence under Section 138 N.I. Act against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application dated 23.12.2017 under Section 142 (1)(2) N.I. Act read with Section 461 (k)(l) Cr.P.C stating therein that the complaint was not lodged within the local/territorial jurisdiction of paying bank, which amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of section 142(2) and 142A of the N.I. Act. Therefore, the order passed by the court below taking cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned trial court vide order dated 26.02.2018, rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order before the court of District and Session Court, Jodhpur Metropolitan by way of revision petition, which was transferred to the court of Additional District and Session Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan. Learned Additional District and Session Judge No. 1 Jodhpur Metropolitan vide order dated 01.03.2019 rejected the revision petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant did not lodge the complaint within the local/territorial jurisdiction of paying bank which amounts to violation of mandatory provisions of section 142(2) and 142A of N.I. Act and thus, the order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court is in violation of the provisions of the N.I. Act. It is further argued that the learned trial court was not having territorial jurisdiction to inquire into the aforesaid case as per section 142(2) and 142A (1) N.I. Act. Learned counsel relied upon decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hukmaram v. State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases 591 (Rajasthan), Sunil Todi and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in AIR 2022 SC 147, Archana Mittal v. Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. (S.B. Crl. Misc. petition No. 2589/2022 decided on 31.08.2022, Sayed Mohammed and ors. v. state of Maharashtra and ors 2022(3) reported in Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 245, Mahendra Kumar Agarwal v. State of West Bengal and another reported in 2021 CRI. L.J. 3889, Vishwadini Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2021 CRI. L.J. 3894, Shivshankar Shrikrushna Dhole v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) ALLMR (Cri) 3409, Vijay Dhanuka Etc. v. Najima Mamtaj Etc. reported in 2014 CRI.L.J. 2295, State of Bihar and others v. Rajmangal Ram reported in 2014 CRI. L.J. 2300, Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimabalkar and another reported in AIR 2017 SC 299, Ajay Singh and another and Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh and another reported in AIR 2017 SC 310, Asma v. State of Maharashtra (2018) AllMR (Cri) 3666. It is thus, prayed that the impugned orders may be quashed and the order taking cognizance so also the complaint filed by the complainant may be quashed and set aside.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the praye