Judgment :- P.S. DATTA, J. (1) Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2) CRR No.1657/08 and CRR No.1659/08 are heard together as the parties are the same and they are raise common question of law and fact. (3) CRR No.1657/08 arose out of Case No.C-1560/2000 under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta. In the said case the accused persons are alleged to have issued towards discharge of debt or liability two cheques for Rs.40 lakhs drawn on UTI Bank, Purasawalkam (Chennai Branch). The cheques got dishonoured. A statutory notice followed and the case was filed on 18th January, 2008 payments having not been made under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. (4) CRR No. 1659/08 arose out of Case No.C-1559/2000 under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Calcutta. In that case also the present petitioners issued in favour of the O.P. No.2, two cheques for Rs.10 lakhs + Rs.87,341/- towards discharge of debt or other liability and the cheques having been dishonored, statutory notice followed. Payments having not been made, the case was filed. (5) It has been stated in both the complaints that the accused no.1 is a company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956 having their office in Chennai and accused nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 are the Directors and Office-In-charge of the said company who are jointly as well as severely In-charge of and or responsible to the said company for their day to day business and they also enjoyed the overall control over the regular affairs of the said company at the material time when the offences were committed and all of them jointly as well as severely made the petitioners company. (6) Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioners in both the revisional applications have taken number of points. He read out the petition of complaint to submit at the outset that from the petition of complaint, it would not appear that there has been any creation of debt or existence of any liability towards discharge of which the cheques allegedly were issued and got bounced. My attention has been drawn to Paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint. He read out the petition of complaint to submit at the outset that from the petition of complaint, it would not appear that there has been any creation of debt or existence of any liability towards discharge of which the cheques allegedly were issued and got bounced. My attention has been drawn to Paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint. In Paragraph 4 of the complaint, it has been stated that the petitioners company gave business loan to the accused company by cheques through authorised representative one Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain of Chenni and the said Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain had been collecting from the accused persons payments towards interest. Paragraph 5 of the petition of complaint (CRR 1659/08) inter alia relates that Mr. Jain sent two cheques for Rs. 97,341/-to the complainant after the same were issued by the accused persons and interest after deduction of TDS. Similarly, averments have been made in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the CRR No.1657/08. (7) Now Mr. Mukherjee submits that there has not been any creation of loan or debt between the complainant company and the accused because one Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain allegedly gave money to the accused persons and there has not been any transactions between the complainant company and the accused persons. (8) The second submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that it was Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain who was the holder of the cheque and at no point of time the cheques would be with the complainant company. (9) The third submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain has not been made a witness in this case and it was he who could have said as to whether there was creation of any debt or liability towards discharge by the accused persons in favour of the complainant. (10) The fourth submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that one of the Directors namely accused no.5 resigned from the Directorship of the company before the transactions in questions and the learned Magistrate did not take into consideration of the fact that in view of Form 32 submitted before the Registrar of Companies the said petition no.5 ceased to be one of the Directors of the company. (11) The fifth submission of Mr. (11) The fifth submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that the Calcutta Court ceased to have jurisdiction into the matter and my attention has been drawn to the decision in Hannan Electronics Private Limited and Anr. v. National Panasonic India (P) Ltd. Further decision in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar and Ors.2in support of the position that the court may take into consideration any document extraneous to the complaint of the FIR provided the said document is utmost consideration to the examination of a complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (12) Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, led by Mr. Amit Bhattacharya learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has contradicted the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee. It has firstly been submitted by Mr. Bagchi that the petition of complaint if read as a whole would clearly reveal that there has been established prima facie existence or creation or debt or liability. It is submitted that the reply to the statutory notice if read closely is revealed that the accused persons also denied the liability. Denial of liability to the notice issued under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is sufficient to show prima facie that towards discharge of debt and liability the petitioners issued cheques in favour of the complainant. It is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that it is Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain through whom the loan was advanced to the petitioner and it was Mr. Jain to whom the accused delivered cheques drawn in favour of the complainant on a certain bank at Chenni and the said cheques came into hands of the complainant. Therefore, Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jains being an intermediary is of no consequence. It is through Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain that loan transactions came to be established and it is not that Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain himself issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. It was the petitioners who issued the cheques in favour of the accused persons. (13) Further it is submitted that in the petition of complaint itself it has been clearly made out that issuance of cheques was towards discharge of debts or liability. As to the territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that the cheques were presented before the Calcutta Bank and, as such, in view of the decision in K. Bhaskaran v. Vaidya Balan3 the Calcutta Court has jurisdiction to draw the case. Mr. As to the territorial jurisdiction, it is submitted by Mr. Bagchi that the cheques were presented before the Calcutta Bank and, as such, in view of the decision in K. Bhaskaran v. Vaidya Balan3 the Calcutta Court has jurisdiction to draw the case. Mr. Bagchi has referred to the decision in MMTC Limited v. Medchl-Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd.4 wherein it has been observed by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the burden of proving that there is no existence of debt or liability was on the respondents and this can be discharged by them in the trial. As to the alleged resignation of the petitioner no.5 Mr. Bagchi has referred to a decision of this Court in Budhmal Bhansali v. State of West Bengal5 wherein this court considered a good number of judgments of the Supreme Court and of this court and came to a finding that Form 32 is not a public document within the purview of Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. (14) Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the O.P. No. 2,I find that in the petition of complaint there is clear averment that towards debt and liability cheques were issued. In the petition of complaint itself, it has been alleged that the loan was advanced to the accused persons by the complainant through Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain and it was Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain to whom cheques were given by the accused persons in favour of the complainant and it was the complainant who received the cheques and deposited the same in the bank. The statutory notice and the petition of complaint make it clear that there was existence allegedly of debt or liability towards discharge of which the petitioners issued cheques. (15) Non-examination of Mr. Bajranglal Bengani @ B.L. Jain at the initial stage is of no point. (16) Section 139 of the N.I. Act clearly provides that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the kind referred to in Section 138 for the discharge by the whole or in part of any debt or other liability. This presumption goes against the petitioners and they have to discharge the presumption. This presumption goes against the petitioners and they have to discharge the presumption. In the petition of complaint there is enough indication of the creation of debt and there is enough indication that towards discharge of debt or liability cheques were issued. Therefore, at the trial only, it can be established whether or not cheques were issued in discharge of debt or liability. (17) As to the territorial jurisdiction the decision in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. and Anr. Appears to be a departure from K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran. The facts in Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (supra) are in a different factual situation. The K. Bhaskaran has not been dissented from in Harman Electronics and the decision in K. Bhaskaran is of the same coordinate Bench as in Hannan Electronics. K. Bhaskaran laid down as to where the case can be filed and it appears that the cheques were presented in Calcutta bank and I do not think that the learned Magistrate does not have territorial jurisdiction. (18) As to the alleged resignation of the O.P. No. 2 from the Directorship of the company, I am to observe that this is a question of fact. This is to be put to evidence and at this stage this point cannot be taken into consideration. (19) Having regard to the averments in the petition of complaints, statutory notice, examination of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and the position of law obtaining in the given situation. I do not find that these are cases where inherent jurisdiction of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be invoked so as to quash the proceeding. (20) As prayed for trial be expedited. The question of fact can be raised at the trial. Accordingly, I dismiss the application. Urgent Xerox certified copy of the order shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible. Petition dismissed.