Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by learned S.D.J.M., Pakur in P.C.R. Case No. 251 of 2005, whereby the court over -ruled the objection raised by the petitioner that the court does not have territorial jurisdiction. The facts giving rise to this application are that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 lodged a complaint stating therein that he being the owner of M/s. Talreza Stone Works, Tilbhita, Pakur, entered into an agreement by way of deed of indenture of sale/transfer with the petitioner for selling the entire assets of M/s. Talreza Stone Works situated at Pakur for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Against the said consideration, a post dated cheque bearing No. 608132 dated 30.4.2005 of Rs. 6,25,000/ - was drawn in the name of the complainant on Indian Overseas Bank, Kolkata which cheque was delivered at Pakur office of the complainant. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant on 12.7.2005 in the Andhra Bank, New Alipore Branch. On its deposit, the said cheque was sent to Indian Overseas Bank, Ballyganj Park Road Branch, Kolkata for collection, but the said cheque got dishonoured which was returned back to the complainant on 13.7.2005. Thereupon, a registered notice was sent requesting therein to make payment of the said amount but in spite of receiving notice, nothing was done and then a complaint was filed which was registered as P.C.R. Case No. 251 of 2005.
(2.) AFTER holding inquiry, cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. In course of trial, an application was filed under Section 177 Cr.P.C. raising an issue that the Court does not have territorial jurisdiction as no cause of action ever accrued to the petitioner at the place falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Pakur. That objection was overruled by the court below vide its order dated 9.3.2011 which is under challenge.
(3.) MR . D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that from the averments made in the complaint as well as in indenture of sale/transfer, it would appear that the entire transactions were made at Kolkata and no part of cause of action fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Pakur, still case was lodged at Pakur, as a notice in terms of the provisions, as contained in Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, was sent from Pakur which will not give any jurisdiction to the court at Pakur, still the court rejected the objection and hence the impugned order is fit to be set aside.;