HEMLATA RAGHUNATH PENDHARKAR Vs. JASWANTSINGH RAJARAM PENDHARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the facts as well as the question of law involved in both the Criminal Applications are almost identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In Criminal Application No. 2674 of 2008, the applicant-accused had given a cheque bearing No. 273003 dated 20.10.2007 for an amount of Rs. 16,000/-drawn on Bank of Baroda, Senapati Bapat Road Branch, Pune, to the complainant. The respondent-complainant deposited the said cheque in his account with IDBI Bank, Phaltan Branch, on 20.12.2007. The said cheque in turn was forwarded for clearance by IDBI Bank, Phaltan Branch, to Bank of Baroda, Senapati Bapat Road Branch, Pune. The said cheque was dishonoured and the intimation regrading the same was given by the applicant's Bank to the respondent-complainant's Bank on 11.1.2008. Accordingly, a notice was issued by the respondent complainant on 29.1.2008 calling upon him to make the payment of the dishonoured cheque. Though the notice was attempted to be served, it was refused by the accused. Since the accused did not comply with the notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Phaltan. In the said complaint, an applica-tion was filed by the applicant to the effect that the Court at Phaltan did not have jurisdiction. The said . oplication came to be rejected vide order dated 23.6.2008. Hence, the present application.

(3.) In Criminal Application No. 326 of 2010, the cheque in question was drawn on Pune Cantonment Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hadapsar Market Branch, Hadapsar, Pune. The respondent-complainant had presented the said cheque in Mohol Branch of Solapur District Co-operative Bank which in turn was forwarded to the applicant's banker at Pune. The cheque returned dishonoured. Accordingly, a notice was served from Mohol. The notice was not claimed by the applicant. Since the payment was not made within the stipulated period, a complaint came to be filed. An identical application came to be filed to the effect that the learned trial Court at Mohol did not have jurisdiction, the said application was rejected. A revision challenging the said order was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Solapur. The same was also rejected. Hence, the present application.