JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No. 8/2009 preferred by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, Nagaur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the admitted facts mentioned in the complaint, it is apparent that no cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, Nagaur so as to empower the court at Ladnu to entertain the aforesaid complaint. He further submits that it is admitted in the complaint that the complainant as well as the accused were having business transactions at Mumbai. The business dealings in pursuance whereto the complaint has been filed took place at Mumbai. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant in order to create jurisdiction at Rajasthan malafide presented the cheque advanced to him by the firm at Jaswantgarh and, thereafter, issued a notice for demand from Ladnu. Learned counsel submits that all these actions were undertaken by the complainant just in order to create jurisdiction in the court at Ladnu, whereas, no cause of action has arisen at Ladnu. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. (M/s.) & Anr. v. M/s. National Panasonic India Ltd., reported in 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 928. Learned counsel thus prays that the instant misc. petition deserves to be allowed and the proceedings of the Criminal Complaint No. 8/2009 preferred by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, Nagaur be transferred to the competent court at Mumbai. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner but he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that in this case, the business transactions between the parties have taken place at Mumbai. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned complaint. 5. From a perusal of the complainant, it is apparent that whatever business transactions took place between the parties were admittedly carried out at Mumbai. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned complaint. 5. From a perusal of the complainant, it is apparent that whatever business transactions took place between the parties were admittedly carried out at Mumbai. There is no fact on the record of the case, by which, it can be said that the business transactions between the parties have taken place at Rajasthan. The complainant in order to create jurisdiction at Rajasthan malafide presented the cheque at his bank at Jaswantgarh and, thereafter, issued a notice of demand from Ladnu, obviously, for the purpose of creating jurisdiction at Ladnu. 6. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harman Electronics (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the court at Ladnu had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant in this case. 7. Resultantly, this misc. petition is allowed. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ladnu, Nagaur is directed to return back the complaint to the complainant being presented before the competent court at Mumbai. The time consumed during the pendency of the case shall not be considered as a bar of limitation against the complainant.Petition allowed. *******