Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 470 (BOM)

Ajay Ramesh Dhole v. Deepak Shridhar Weginwar

2014-02-21

M.L.TAHALIYANI

body2014
Judgment : Learned counsel Mr. Raut is heard on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Maheshwari is heard on behalf of the respondent. 2. Admit. Heard finally by consent. 3. This criminal writ petition impugns the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Criminal Revision Application No.97 of 2010. The petitioners are the accused in Criminal Case No.935 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chandrapur. The respondent is the complainant in the said criminal case. The petitioners moved the trial Magistrate for dismissal of complaint on the ground that the Chandrapur Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. The said application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Therefore, the revision application was filed before the Sessions Court, Chandrapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge heard both the parties at length. The issue raised before the Additional Sessions Judge by the petitioners was that the whole transaction had taken place at Amravati and that therefore the Chandrapur Court would not have any jurisdiction to try the case. 4. It appears from the record that the respondent claimed to be authorized stockiest of Balwant Tractors for Vidarbha Region. The petitioners are partners of M/s. Sarvadnya Tractors, Amravati. The petitioners were having regular business with the respondent and there were lot of transactions between the petitioners and the respondent. It is also seen that the cheques in question were given at Chandrapur. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the tractors were being purchased from Force Motors of Pune. However, that does not appear to be a fact. It is possible that delivery might have been done by Force Motors at the instance of the respondent, who is authorized stockiest of Balwant Tractors. The tractors might have been supplied by Force Motors of Pune. However, transaction was between the petitioners and the respondent. It is specific case of respondent that the cheques in question were delivered at Chandrapur. What is pertinent to note is that the respondent had his office at Chandrapur. Therefore, any payment due from the petitioners to the respondent was expected to be made at Chandrapur. If the payment was expected to be made at Chandrapur and if it is not made, the cause of action will definitely arise within the jurisdiction of Chandrapur Court. 5. Therefore, any payment due from the petitioners to the respondent was expected to be made at Chandrapur. If the payment was expected to be made at Chandrapur and if it is not made, the cause of action will definitely arise within the jurisdiction of Chandrapur Court. 5. I do not find anything wrong in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in paragraph No.7 of his order has clearly stated that the cheques in question were issued at Chandrapur. I do not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition needs to be dismissed. 6. It appears that the petitioners somehow wanted to kill time of the Court and do not want to proceed with the case and therefore time and again they are moving Sessions Court or this Court at interlocutory stage. The learned trial Court needs to be directed to take note of this conduct of the petitioners and expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Writ petition is dismissed. Trial is expedited. The same shall be concluded within two months from the date of receipt of this order. Petition dismissed.