AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in C.C.No.34041/2010 pending on the file of XIII Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore and order dated 22.7.2010. Respondent has filed a private complaint u/s 200 of Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate after taking cognizance, recording the sworn statement has registered a case and also has issued summons. This order has been called in question by the petitioner on the ground that, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In the private complaint, address of the complainant is shown as Bangalore, in fee body of the complaint, complainant has stated that, cheque was issued and presented at Bangalore and it was dishonoured in Bangalore, in pursuance of which, notice was also issued at Bangalore, hence, cause of action accrued to the complainant in Bangalore.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Another Vs. National Panasonic India Ltd., in the matter of M/S. HARMAN ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. & ANOTHER -vs- M/S. NATIONAL PANASONIC INDIA LTD., and submitted that, it is not the service of notice gives the cause of action, but where the transaction taken place gives the cause of action. Reading of the complaint also shows that, cause of action is accrued only in Bangalore. The decision relied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Hence, the petition fails and same is dismissed.