JUDGMENT G.D Kamat, J. - This petition challenges the want of jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, in respect of a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint, being Criminal Case No. 92/8/1982, under section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. read with section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the petitioner bas wrongfully withheld possession of a residential flat which was allotted to him by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. when the Petitioner was in its employment and the Petitioner failed to surrender the same once he retired from service. 2. Though the Complaint was filed on 5.4.1982, summons was issued against the Petitioner on 20.12.1 982 and for the first time evidence was recorded in this case on behalf of the Complainant on 26.8.1985 and the matter was thereafter posted for continuation of the examination – in - chief on 27.1.1986 and then adjourned for cross-examination 10.2.1986. 3. Relying upon section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and other sections in support, it is contended by Shri N.H. Gursahani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, who is accused in that Criminal Case, that a residential flat in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner, being situated at Setalwad Road, Bombay 400 006, any offence in relation thereto falls within the local limits of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate at Girgaum and, therefore, the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 37th Court, Esplanade does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try that Complaint. 4. Shri C.S. Kotwal, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, has relied upon a number of sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure and there is no difficulty in enumerating them here. They are sections 16(1), 19(3), 177, 181(4), 460, 461 and 462. In short, his contention is that each and every Metropolitan Magistrate has jurisdiction in respect of the entire metropolis and that is his territorial jurisdiction and secondly, the owner of the flat occupied by the petitioner, i.e., the National Insurance Co. Ltd. has a Divisional Office at Church gate and this being the position, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, has jurisdiction to try that Criminal Case. 5. Shri Gursahani, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has relied upon some authorities. Ltd. has a Divisional Office at Church gate and this being the position, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, has jurisdiction to try that Criminal Case. 5. Shri Gursahani, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has relied upon some authorities. However, there is only a restrictive challenge in this petition in relation to want of jurisdiction and he does not challenge the offences with which the Petitioner has been charged. 6. After hearing both learned counsel, undisputably the position that emerges is that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum Court, has admittedly jurisdiction in respect of this offences alleged against the petitioner. The Petitioner has raised the point of jurisdiction in the trial Court itself. Though I am not deciding in this petition as to whether the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade has jurisdiction or not, I propose to pass the following order. 7. Criminal case No. 92/8/1982 be transferred from the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, to the Court of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. 40th Court, Girgaum, who shall try the said Criminal Complaint and dispose it of finally from the proceedings to start from where they are left by the 37th Court, Esplanade. In view of the fact that this complaint was filed in the year 1982 and the proceedings were commenced as late as in 1985, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, may give due priority to this case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 8. In view of the order passed above, Rule is made accordingly. Rule made accordingly.