K.U Chandiwal, J.:—P.C:—
Heard.
2. The proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated by the Respondents before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai vide C.C No. 3142.SS/2008 and C.C No. 3286.SS2008. After the process, the Petitioners had caused appearance before the learned Judge pointed the situation and urged for sending the complaint to the proper Court at Delhi since all the events have accrued at Delhi.
3. The learned Judge allowed the Application for presenting complaint to proper Court. Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent (Original Complainant) approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Revision No. 301 of 2010, and by order dated 2 November 2011, he set aside the order of the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate dated 5 January 2010.
4. Reading the complaint as a whole, the cheques were issued to the Complainant at Delhi. The transaction has taken place at Delhi. Even the Accused has the business transaction at Delhi. The cheques were drawn on Federal Bank, New Delhi, presented to the Bank at New Delhi. It was returned unpaid by the drawee Bank at New Delhi. Only issuance of demand notice through the Counsel at Mumbai could be said to be one of the transaction taken place at Mumbai. The order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 5 January 2010 passed below Exhibit 16, does not call for interference as the legal position is well indicated in the matter of National Small Industries Corporation v. Hermeet Singh Paintal reported in (2010) 3 SCC 330 and in the matter of Mrs. Preetha S. Babu v. Voltas Ltd., (2010) All MR (Cri) 1025, decided by the Division Bench of this Court. Both Petitions allowed.