SANJAY JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this miscellaneous application.

(2.) However, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 has contended that there is no merit in the miscellaneous application as the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire complaint case instituted for the offences under Section 406/420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code mainly on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction besides that the matter involves simple breach of contract and no case for any offence under the Penal Code is made out.

(3.) As regards territorial jurisdiction, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trisuns Chemicals Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal, reported in, (1999) 8 SCC 686, in which the Apex Court has held that quashing on the ground that the Magistrate who took cognizance had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case was improper and premature. In the said case the Supreme Court also held that quashing of complaint or FIR in which cheating is alleged cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are also maintainable.