JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint and proceedings dated 10.01.2012 arising out of criminal case No.5/2012 pending before Additional Civil Judge (JD) and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2 Jodhpur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 2. The petitioner has categorically come out with a case that both the petitioner and respondent No.2 are carrying out their business at Mumbai. The dispute arose regarding their financial transactions and an allegation was that the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No. 567149 of ICICI Bank Branch Borivali Mumbai and the same was dishonoured. 3. The respondent No.2 who suffered the dishonouring of the cheque, filed a complaint and the learned trial court took cognizance on 10.01.2012 under Section 138 of the Act. 4. The petitioner has come out with a categorical case that the complainant does not have any account in Jodhpur and non of the transactions happened at Jodhpur as all the transactions happened at Mumbai, their case does not lie in the jurisdiction of Jodhpur. It is reiterated by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 does not have account in Jodhpur and though his banker is HDFC Bank but he does not have any account of HDFC Bank at Jodhpur therefore, the jurisdiction would not lie. 5. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that as per the mandate of Section 142 of the Act, the complaint was maintainable at Jodhpur as per clause 2 of Section 142 of the Act that "if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be maintains the account, is sitauted; or if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated." but the amendment of Section 142 has been brought into force after filing of the complaint. As per counsel for the petitioner, such retrospective application of law is not permissible in the eye of law. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Raju v. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. As per counsel for the petitioner, such retrospective application of law is not permissible in the eye of law. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Raju v. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1947 of 2011 decided on 01.05.2013 reported in 2013(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 965, the Court has held which reads as under: "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 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 mala fide 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. 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. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this criminal misc. petition of the petitioner and accordingly the complaint and proceedings pending before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.05/2012 (Mithlesh v. M/s Think Sanerjy are quashed and set aside. It is needless to say that the indulgence has been granted on account of aforementioned precedent law and the same shall not have any effect on the merits of the case. The interference is solely on the ground of jurisdiction and shall not prejudice the merits of the case. 8. The criminal misc. petition is accordingly allowed.