The court emphasized that for criminal cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the jurisdiction of the court to try the case is governed by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and not common law principles.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ in the nature of declaration declaring that by the contract if the parties have restricted settling of disputes between them at a particular place, any prosecution or proceedings launched by the other party away from the restricted / agreed jurisdiction even in cases of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act falling within the said contract will not be valid and binding in law and non-est against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has made the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu as first and second respondents. Apart from that, there are 17 respondents, including seven learned Magistrates whose courts are situated in New Delhi, Haryana and Mumbai.

3. The contention of the petitioner was that the petitioner is the limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The company had entered into contracts with some super stockiest, Channel Partners covering for a period of 6-1/2 years. Under the said Contract, it was agreed between the parties that any dispute arising out of the contract will be settled by the Arbitrator at Chennai. For terminating the contract, either of the parties should give six months notice. For settling the matter, one has to wait for 180 days, during which period the contracting party will have to return the material accounts. Therefore, any dispute arising out of the said contract between the petitioner and the other contracting parties, the Court at Chennai alone will have the jurisdiction. The petitioner had appointed Distributors / stockiest at various cadres and respondents 3,5,7,9,11,13 and 18 and has valid contracts. They have breached the contracts even at the initial stage itself. The counter guarantee cheque which was issued to them was misused by them. They filed criminal complaints before various courts in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrates of respective courts have also issued process in respect of those complaints. The details of transactions which the petitioner had entered into with various contesting respondents and also the nature of process issued by various learned Magistrates who were also made as party respondents to the writ petition were furnished in the typed set.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that filing complaints in all over the India, even though they had agreed to sue the petitioner only within the jurisdiction of the Chennai city has resulted in nuisance and harassment besides causing mental agony and business loss to the petitioner. The contractual obligation that they had with the petitioner debar them from suing the petitioner in various Magistrates' Courts in terms of Section 138 of the NI Act. Such proceedings initiated will not be binding on the petitioner in view of the subsisting of contracts. It is in that view of the matter, the petitioner has sought for declaratory relief. He also stated that similar writ petitions have been admitted by this court. The copies of various proceedings initiated against the petitioner before various Magistrate Courts have been enclosed in the typed set. The petitioner also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bir Bajrang Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1987 SC 1345 for contending that when similar writ petitions have been admitted for identical relief, the court should not dismiss the writ petition.

5. However, this court is not inclined to admit the writ petition for more than one ground. Except by giving number of those writ petitions, the petitioner has not made out any case as to how they are similar to the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, he has made several magistrates of the Country as party respondents as if the writ petition is a quash petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In respect of each process issued by the learned Magistrates, it is the separate cause of action and the petitioner cannot file a consolidated writ petition and challeng