2022 (7) TMI 1169

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned action is to be interfered with in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 2. The petitioner contends that notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') was received from the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vishakhapatnam with the appearance date fixed on 22nd February, 2013 and to submit evidence and answer the charge which is based on vague and false allegations made at the instance of OP No. 1. According to the petitioner, his wife rather was served with the legal notice dated 16th August, 2012 demanding payment in relation to alleged sale transaction and thereafter, notice (Annexure-2) was received for her appearance in the complaint case....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... could not have been filed at Vishakhapatnam. While contending so, a decision of this Court in Narottam Bastia Vrs. State of Orissa and another reported in 2017 (II) OLR 767 is cited by Mr. Satpathy. It has also been pleaded that this Court is having the jurisdiction to entertain the challenge in view of its earlier judgment in Sri Kailash Chandra Mishra Vrs. Sri Ajitsinh Ulhasrao Babar and others reported in 2014 (I) OLR 211. In course of hearing, the Court had raised a preliminary question regarding the jurisdiction of this Court when the complaint is filed at Vishakhapatnam. In other words, the question is, whether, a proceeding pending in the court in the State of Andhra Pradesh can be a subject of challenge before this Court? 6. Admit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....142(2) of the N.I. Act. In the present case, as it appears from Annexure-1 series, the alleged cheque stated to have been presented at Vishakhapatnam, if at all the averments therein are to be believed and accepted at its face value. If such is the case, then OP No. 1 can be said to have rightly filed the complaint at Vishakhapatnam where his banker is situated. The transactions might have taken place in Orissa and for that, civil litigations could have been brought before any court situated at such places where a part of cause of action arose but for the purpose of a criminal action under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in view of Section 142(2), it has to be at a place where the cheque was presented and dishonoured. In so far as the decision....