JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, J. - This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking discharge by way of quashment of private complaint filed before 33rd Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai registered at case No.16/misc/99 Khandwala Securities Ltd. Vs. Shyam Sundar Choudhari. 2. Short facts of the case are that the Khandwala Securities Limited has filed a private complaint, against petitioners alleging the commission of offence under section 406, 407 read with Section 120-B of IPC and in alternative under section 420/120-B of IPC and under Sections 78, 209-A, 210,292, 293, 295 (I) (E) and 372 of Companies Act. Initially the Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai had refused to take cognizance but on filing the revision bearing No.447/99 before the Sessions Court in Mumbai matter was remitted back to the trial Court to call for the report of D.C.B.C.I.D. The D.C.B.C.I.D. by its report has observed, on going through the allegations the dispute appears of civil nature. After having received such report, the statement of complaint under section 200 of Cr. P.C. was recorded by the trial Court, and on going through the allegations and statements order taking cognizance has been passed on 31.01.2008 by the trial court, under section 420 of IPC, read with sections 78,209-A, 210,292,293,295 (I) (E) and 372 of Companies Act and summons were issued. Being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance passed by the 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai this petition has been filed seeking quashment of the private complaint and to set aside the order taking cognizance, and in consequence of pass an order of discharge of petitioners. 3. As per the allegations of the private complaint the accused/petitioners are the Directors of the company known as Kowa Spinning Limited, which is involved in manufacturing of low count cotton yarn and promoted a company known as Maya Spinners Limited. Both the petitioners are managing and controlling the affairs of the said companies. It is said that the accused persons by submitting a project report, audit report, to show the economic viability, entered into a sponsorship agreement dated 28-10-94, between the petitioner and the complainant at Mumabi. In terms of the said sponsorship agreement the complainant/company along with its associates agreed to subscribe 20,80,000 shares of Kowa Spinning Limited efface value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.10/- per equity share aggregating Rs.4,16,00,000/- (Rs. Four Crore and Sixteen Lac Only). In terms of the said sponsorship agreement the complainant/company along with its associates agreed to subscribe 20,80,000 shares of Kowa Spinning Limited efface value of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.10/- per equity share aggregating Rs.4,16,00,000/- (Rs. Four Crore and Sixteen Lac Only). The said finance agreed by the complainant company was required to be used only for expansion-cum-diversification of Kowa Spinning Limited to manufacture cotton yarn and knitted fabric. In terms of sub Clause (A) of clause 11 of sponsorship agreement, it was specific that the complainant sponsor company at his discretion may appoint a Nominee in the Board of Directors if necessary have visiting rights to the Board Meetings and the Company shall keep the sponsor informed of the meetings giving notice of atleast seven days and shall furnish all agenda papers in advance. It was also agreed upon by the accused Company that monthly production and sale report as well as write ups on the general state of performance and the factors that might affect the industry shall be furnished to complainant by every month as per enclosed format and the said right will become operational on signing the agreement and will last till the offer of sale to the public is completed, and allotment done. After entering into the agreement, and even on various demands the Directors of the Kowa Spining Limited has not furnished any information to the complainant Company, however, it is said in complaint that the action of the respondent after getting money from the complainant is amounting to cheating to them, and has also committed offence punishable under various provisions of the Companies Act. By the said allegations the private complaint was filed in the Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai, whereupon the cognizance had taken against the petitioners. In place of tendering their presence before the said Court in Maharashtra, petitioners have come to this Court by filing this petition, seeking quashment. 4. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Gupta, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the transaction has been taken place at Indore. The money has also been transferred at Indore, however, the cause of action arose is at Indore and not at Mumbai, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Court at Mumabi is without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court. First is Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. The money has also been transferred at Indore, however, the cause of action arose is at Indore and not at Mumbai, therefore, the cognizance taken by the Court at Mumabi is without jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on two judgments of the Apex Court. First is Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and others - AIR 2000 SC 2966 , and second is Rajendra Ramchandrs Kavalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. AIR 2009 SCW 1379, and submitted that this Court may quash private complaint filed before 33rd Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai, invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. In view of the said facts prayer is made to allow the petition and to quash the private complaint filed against the petitioners. 5. Per Contra, Shri Milind Phadke, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the sponsorship agreement was entered into by the petitioners at Mumbai as apparent on the face of it. It is further said that in furtherance" to the agreement executed between the parties cheques were delivered at Mumbai, and its encashment is also from the account, of complainant at Mumbai. It is submitted that as per the allegation alleged in the private complaint it is apparent that the accused/petitioners have not enforced the terms and conditions of the agreement executed in Mumbai with respect to nomination of the Director, non-supply of the requisite production report despite demand however, cause of action has arisen in Mumbai, therefore, the private complaint taking cognizance to an offence of cheating as well as various offence of the Companies Act has rightly been filed in the 33rd Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai, who has rightly taken the cognizance in the said private complaint. It is further contended by him that invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., a private complaint filed in the Court of Mumbai, outside the territory of State of M.P., and the orders passed therein cannot be set aside by this Court. It is submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court is over and above the Court of territorial limits of the State of M.P, however, the order passed by the Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai may not be set aside by this Court. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhageeratha Eng. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhageeratha Eng. Ltd. and others - AIR 2006 SC 1288 . The reliance has further been placed on a judgment of Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar (supra), which is relied upon by the petitioner. He has further placed reliance of Full Bench Judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Mrs. Meenakshi Sathish Vs. M/s Southern Petrochemical Industries and others - 2007 Cri. L J. 2250, and argued that in the cases where the cause of action arose in the State of Maharashtra to which a private complaint has been filed in the Court of Mumbai and the cognizance taken by passing an order cannot be set aside by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, because the orders passed by the Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai is in the territory of Mumbai High Court and it cannot be set aside invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr. PC. by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In view of the said facts prayer is made to dismiss the petition. 6. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it is to be seen that in view of the judgment of apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) a private complaint filed by the respondent in the Court of Maharashtra and the order passed by the trial Court at Mumbai taking cognizance may be set aside and the petitioners may be discharged. 7. To advert the submission as made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties relevant facts in a case of Navichandra N. Majithia (supra) was that a contract was entered into between Naveenchandra N. Majithia and a company, Indian Farmers Pvt. Ltd., wherein Naveenchandra N. Majithia was the Managing Director. The said agreement was of the purchase of the entire shares of Indian Farmers Pvt. Ltd. and the earnest money was paid. When the commitment was not fulfilled to pay balance purchase price the agreement was terminated and suit was filed in the High Court of Mumbai for specific performance of the contract. Some of the Directors formed another Company in Shillong in State of Meghalaya. After sometime the suit was withdrawn and the amount which was earlier forfeited by the appellant was paid. Some of the Directors formed another Company in Shillong in State of Meghalaya. After sometime the suit was withdrawn and the amount which was earlier forfeited by the appellant was paid. The appellant alleging that the default has been committed in such payment of the balance amount, which is amounting to breach of agreement. In this context the new company has filed a comlaoint at Shillong. Naveenchandra N. Majithia by filing an objection raised question of maintainability of the complaint in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before Mumbai High Court, which was dismissed. In the writ petition prayer was made to quash the FIR filed in Shillong concerning a transaction of Mumbai and also praying to issue the writ of prohibition to restrain the Special SP Police, CID, Shillong to take further step. The Mumbai High Court rejected the said writ petition on the pretext of territorial jurisdiction. The apex Court reversed the said decision directing that the investigation which is being conducted by Special SP Police, CID, Mumbai Police through Economic Offence Wing, General Branch or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police, because the entire transaction has taken place in Mumbai and the cause of action arose also at Mumbai. The said judgment of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) has came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Musaraf Hossain Khan (supra) along with various other earlier judgments and in paragraph No. 29 it has observed by the Apex Court:- "We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of subordinate court has been passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof". 8. The Court has further observed that relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors. - 2006 (2) SCALE 30 that the High Court, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. 9. 8. The Court has further observed that relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Owners & Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors. - 2006 (2) SCALE 30 that the High Court, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. 9. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar (supra) of the apex Court is only issue of territorial jurisdiction as per Section 177 of Cr. P.C. and also dealt with the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the said case apex Court after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case has observed as under:- "The case of the appellant before the High Court of Mumbai, was that he was nowhere responsible for the issuance of fake/forged degree certificates while securing job as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant in ITDC. According to appellant, it is handiwork of Shri Kanhayalal Sharma, who was managing the institution known as 'Marudhar Mahavidyalaya' having its centers at Pune and Mumabi. Except this bald assertion, he has not produced any material in support of that assertion. However, in the complaint filed by CBI, Ranchi, it is specifically alleged that the appellant had entered into criminal conspiracy with the officials of the Ranchi University and had obtained fake degree certificates. A court trying an accused for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try chirf 'offences committed in pursuance of conspiracy irrespective' fact that any or all the other offences were not commu viihin the territorial jurisdiction (See Banwarilal Jhunjhum' Union of India.-AIR 1963 SC1620). A bare perusal of the complaint filed would clearly go to snow that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, the investigation is completed in Ranchi, all the records and the documents pertaining to complaint and the charge sheet are before the Special Judge (CBI), Ranchi, and therefore, in our considered view, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was perfectly justified in declining to entertain the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner." 10. Bare reading of the aforesaid paragraph, it is apparent that in the i judgment the cause of action arose at Ranchi and the Bombay High Court dealing with the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has declined to interface in a writ petition filed by the petitioners. The judgment of Bombay High Court was found justified by the Apex Court. 11. The full Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Meenakshi Sathish (spura) has considered the judgment of Naveenchandra N. Majithia (supra) in the context of the powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., in a private complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act. The Full Bench, after due consideration of various judgments of the apex Court, observed as under:- "Further, the decision of the Apex Court in Navinchandra's case (supra) cannot have any application to a case arising on a private complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Navinchandra's case, the Apex Court considered the question regarding quashing of an EI.R. and the criminal investigation conducted by the police in Shillong about the offences committed or the cause of action which arose in Maharashtra State. So, as the police from Shillong has to do investigation in Maharashtra, the Apex Court observed that the Bombay High Court has jurisdiction in the matter. The said observation can have no application to a. private complaint, based on which a Magistrate's Court, which is outside the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court takes cognizance and proceeds with the trial. So, the observation in Krishnakumar Menon's case, concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, does not lay down the correct legal position, as far as private complaints are concerned. Even if the cause of action for the complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in Kerala, the Kerala High Court cannot interfere with the proceedings before a Criminal Court, outside the jurisdiction of this Court." 12. As per Section 177 of Cr. P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of Cr. As per Section 177 of Cr. P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178 of Cr. P.C. further specifies the place of inquiry and trial, whereby it is apparent that in a case when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed then in each cases it is to be seen, where the offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area. It is to be further seen that the offence is continuing one, and also continues to be committed in more local areas than one. In such a case the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area may inquire or try the offence. As per Section 190 of Cr. P.C. the cognizance of an offence by Magistrate may be taken to the offence, on receiving the complaint which constitute such or offence; upon a police report of such facts or also on receiving an information from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed, the Magistrate may take cognizance. 13. In the present case as per the allegations alleged in a private complaint and looking to the agreement which was entered into at Mumbai and the money transaction after receiving the cheques, from the account of complainant at Mumbai. Petitioners have not filed any document indicating the fact that the money transaction has taken place at Indore on face of agreement. It is not disputed that it has entered in Mumbai. No document indicating the fact that cause of action arose to the complaint at Indore has been filed. Thus on the allegations as alleged in a private complaint and the statement may be looked by this Court deciding issue of cause of action in absence of documentary evidence. The allegations of non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the sponsorship agreement which was entered into at Mumbai, by the accused is also within the territorial limits of the Court of Ballard, Pier, Mumbai. Thus on filing of the private complaint by the complainant the said Court has rightly taken the cognizance, in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mrs. Meenakshi Sathish (supra). Thus on filing of the private complaint by the complainant the said Court has rightly taken the cognizance, in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of Mrs. Meenakshi Sathish (supra). In view of the above, once the cause of action arose to the complainant at Mumbai, however, the order taking cognizance by the Mumbai Court is not assailable before Madhya Pradesh High Court, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr. PC. 14. By filing this petition, petitioners have made a prayer to set aside the order taking cognizance, passed by the Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The said relief cannot granted by this Court in view of above discussion. However, it is open to the petitioners to apply before the Mumbai High Court, assailing the orders of subordinate Court of Maharashtra, having territorial jurisdiction over them and also on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to invoke inherent power by this Court. Thus in view of the forgoing reasons no relief as prayed for in the present petition may be allowed. However, it is open to the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of Mumbai High Court to assail the order passed by the 33rd Court of Ballard Pier, Mumbai on merit or on have aggrieved by such order; because this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the private complaint and this petition has been decided dealing with cause of action, territorial jurisdiction and the scope of Section 482 of Cr. PC. 15. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in this petition, hence the same stands dismissed.