S.D.PANDIT - (1.)Rule. In these three Criminal Revision Applications the petitioners before me are one and the same and the respondents are also one and the same. Though these three revision applications arising out of three private complaints bearing No. 3835 of 1991, 3498 of 1991 and 3497 of 1991, the questions involved in these petitions are one and the same and therefore, they are heard together. I, therefore, proceed to decide all these revision applications by this common judgment.
(2.)I have given opportunity to both the sides to argue the applications on merits fully and I have heard them fully and therefore, I proceed to dispose of these applications finally by this judgment.
(3.)The respondent No. 2 Deepak Chimanlal Shah had lodged the above three private complaints for the commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In all these three cases present petitioners who were accused in those three cases, gave application. By the said application they have contended that the presentation of the cheques issued by the present revision applicant as well as the dishonouring of the cheques had not taken place within the jurisdiction of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad and therefore, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad had no jurisdiction to entertain the said criminal cases. It was contended in the said application that either the Court of Ahmedabad or the Court of Hyderabad would be having jurisdiction to entertain these complaints. Therefore, in the said application prayers were made that the complaint be dismissed and/or the complaints be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court. After hearing both the sides the learned Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that the order dated 6-3-1995 that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint. However, he ordered that the complaint be returned to the complainant for presentation to the proper Court. Present revision applications are preferred to challenge the order of the learned Magistrate by which he directed the return of the complaint to the complainant for presentation of the same to the proper Court.