Jurisdiction of the court is determined by the location of the transaction, and misuse of cheques as security against loan repayment can lead to criminal liability.

This Cr. M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.5.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 314 of 2001 whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 420/406 IPC.

2. The facts reveal from the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 in brief is that he had taken loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the accused persons and he was asked to repay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- including the interest and principal amount. At the instruction of accused persons the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had issued three cheques-first for Rs.50,000/- second for Rs.10,000/- and third one for Rs.75,000/- against repayment of principal as well as the interest as demanded by the petitioners. The dates were also given on those cheques i.e. 12.11.1998 the 14.11.1998 and 25.11.1998 respectively. On 18.1.1999 the complainant/opposite party No. 2 received a legal notice at his Jamshedpur address by which a sum of Rs.1,35,000/ - with interest @ 15% per month was demanded. After receiving said notice the complainant/opposite party No. 2 surprised and arranged Rs.90,000/- and obtained a demand draft from UCO Bank. Mango Jamshedpur payable at Allahabad and handed over the said demand draft to accused No. 1. On the next occasion i.e. in the month of February, 1999 the accused No. 1 demanded balance sum or Rs.45,000 plus 15,000/- more and he was not willing to receive only Rs.45,000/- which was actually due. Thereafter the complainant arranged Rs.60,000/- and deposited in the account at J & K Bank. Allahabad Branch it is further alleged that the accused No.2 in collusion with accused No. 1 withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/- by depositing the cheque which the complainant had given to him at the time he had taken loan. Even after clearance of the amount the accused persons did not return rest two cheques and misused the same by depositing cheque of Rs.75,000/- in his account for encashment. Since the cheques given in security to the accused have been misused a Complaint Case No. 314 of 2001 was lodged and after enquiry the impugned order had been passed.

3. It is submitted that the complainant as well as accused persons arc residents of Allahabad. U.P. and no transaction at Jamshedpur had ever taken place and the CJM, Jamshedpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complainant filed by the opposite party No.2 and the impugned order is without jurisdiction which is liable to be set aside. Besides above prior to filing of this compliant the petitioners filed a case under Section 138 N.I. Act against dishonour of said cheques of Rs.75,000/- it is further pointed out that it is a civil dispute between the parties which had occurred due to non-payment of loan amount advanced to the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the State has appeared but counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is absent.

5. I have gone through the complaint petition impugned order and other documents placed before me. So far as point of jurisdiction is concerned the accused persons have served legal notice demanding the amount advanced to the complainant at the address of the complainant at Jamshedpur. Furthermore the complainant in order to repay the loan amount prepared demand draft of Rs.60,000/- from UCO Bank Mango Branch Jamshedpur and therefore part transaction relating to deal had taken place at Jamshedpur. The delivery of cheques by the complainant to the accused persons is not denied. According to the complainant he has returned the entire loan amount to the accused but according to the accused the entire loan amount was not returned. The contention made in the complaint and the statement recorded in support of such contention indicate that those cheques were given to the accused persons as security against repayment of loan which have been misused to recover more than amount agreed. Since prima facie case appears to have been made for the offence for which the accused persons have been summoned. I do not feel inclined to interfere with the impugned