Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Yashpal, the learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3 and perused the record.
(2.) IT appears that the petitioner's application under Section 156 (3) CrPC was rejected by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad, on 6.11.2008 on the ground that the Courts at Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction. Criminal Revision No. 32 of 2009, Yashpal v. Inder Sharma and others, filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad on 3.3.2010. The relevant facts, as alleged in the complaint, are that the petitioner is the owner of Yashpal Construction Company having its registered office at Ghaziabad, which is involved in the construction work. The respondent No. 4, M/s. Nutek India Limited is also a construction company and respondent Nos. 5,6 and 7 are its officers. The respondent No. 4 has undertaken construction of the thermal power plant'of Tata Project at Kota (Rajasthan). The respondent No. 4 sent an e- mail to the petitioner on 20.11.2007 for construction of the aforesaid project. Thereafter, the petitioner sent its quotation on 23.11.2007 and after negotiation the respondent No. 4 gave purchase order on 11.12.2007. In lieu of the purchase order, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 received Rs. 3,16,000/- from the petitioner at his Ghaziabad office. The petitioner, thereafter, purchased machinery from Ghaziabad and other materials from Kota and handed over to the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 at the site at Kota where the petitioner started work and constructed an office and labour residences but he was not paid any money despite handing over of the bill amounting to Rs. 14,89,516.67 due to bad intention the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 conspired against the petitioner and played fraud on him and kept the machinery and materials with them and are working continuously in violation of the agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the machinery, which was supplied to the respondent No. 4 for the work to be carried out at Kota (Rajasthan), was purchased in Ghaziabad. Moreover, the earnest money of Rs. 3,16,000/- was also received at Ghaziabad, therefore, a part cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the Courts at Ghaziabad, hence the application under Section 156 (3) was maintainable.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, on the other hand, submitted that according to the agreement the work was to be carried out at Kota (Rajasthan) by the petitioner company and the machinery as well as building materials are alleged to have been supplied and delivered to the respondent No. 4 at Kota and this fact has been very clearly stated in the complaint, therefore, no cause of action arose at Ghaziabad. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 further submitted that the complaint is silent as to where the purchase order was delivered to the petitioner. If Rs. 3,16,000/- was paid at Ghaziabad, it has no material significance in regard to the alleged breach of promise at Kota. Mere payment of the said amount at Ghaziabad is not in any way a part of the cause of action.;