T VINAY KUMAR Vs. S ADITYA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition seeks to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 210 of 2005 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai. The petitioner herein is the accused in the said case and faces trial for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of the petition to quash the proceedings, the point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entire transactions between the parties took place at Hyderabad and the complainant, who is having an office at Chennai has issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act therefrom and initiated the complainant case before the lower court. This, it is submitted, is wrongful, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a decision reported in (Harman Electronics (P) Ltd v. National Panasonic India Ltd.159(2009) DLT 160 SC. ") has held as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Shamshad Vs. B. Mohammed',2009 Cri. L.J. 1304 SC. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions.