LAWS(BOM)-2011-6-20

NARENDRAMAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 15, 2011
NARENDRAMAL S/O. MISHRIMAL BAFNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) The petitioner (original accused) questioned the order of issuance of process dated 15/03/2008 passed by the learned Magistrate, Wardha in Summary Criminal Case No.213 of 2008 as also order dated 06/03/2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wardha in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2010 on ground that the learned trial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and besides erroneous findings were recorded on the question of territorial jurisdiction by the learned Magistrate. I have seen the original copy of the Criminal Complaint Case No.213/2008; which indicates from the title itself that the complainant is resident of Wardha, Taluka & District - Wardha, while accused are resident of Nagpur. It appears the case of the complainant that cheque in the sum of Rs.2,06,657/- drawn upon Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Limited, Branch MIDC, Nagpur bearing cheque No.461863, dated 20/10/2007 was issued by the accused which was presented by the complainant with State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Treasury Branch, Wardha for realization.

(3.) The fact that the cheque in question was presented at Wardha through collecting banker and the intimation memo regarding dishonour of cheque was received by the complainant at Wardha is not in dispute, what is disputed is that the complainant is residing at Nagpur. It also appears to have been clarified by the complainant before the trial Court stating that wife of the complainant is serving as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel, Wardha and the complainant is residing at Wardha. It may be true that complainant does not have his own house at Wardha but his wife is employed at Wardha as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel, Wardha. It was also clarified by the complainant that he can reside with his wife in her quarters at Girls Nursing Hostel at Wardha. The evidence of the complainant is therefore clear that his wife was employed as Superintendent at Girls Nursing Hostel at Wardha and he also gave his address at Wardha in the cause title of the complaint.