YASHPAL Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.