JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(1) to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 20.12.2004 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1825 of 2004 and another order dated 4.1.2005 in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2003 between Surya enterprises v. Manoj Kumar Kesharwani and Ors. under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court Tiptur, Tumkur District, Karnataka (Annexure No. 10 and 11 ).
(2) to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to pass order of arrest and not to take coercive steps against the petitioners in the aforesaid complaint criminal case pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC Court Tiptur, Tumkur District, Karnataka.
(3) to pass such other proper and appropriate order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the nature and circumstances of the case.
(4) to award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioners against the respondents.
3. In the present writ petition, a preliminary objection if raised by the learned A.G.A. in respect of the maintainability of this writ petition, on the ground of the territorial jurisdiction, by submitting that the learned Civil Judge (Jr .Div. ), JMFC Court Tiptur, District Tumkur, Karnataka has taken cognizance and Summoned the petitioners and issued the summons dated 20.12.2004 in Complaint Case No. 1825 of 2004 and 4.1.2005 in Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2003 to face the trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, who is not subordinate to this Court and is not under the superintendence of this Court. So this Court has no terrotorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the order of taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners. In the present case, the writ petition is only maintainable in the territorial jurisdiction of Karnataka High Court. It is further contended that the petitioner has not filed the copies of the complaint and summoning orders dated 20.12.2004 and 4.1.2005 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1825 of 2004 and Criminal Complaint Case No. 2071 of 2003 and only on the basis of the copy of the summons issued to the petitioners, no orders can be passed, in respect of the abovementioned prayers, by this Hon'ble Court.
4. The objection raised by the learned A.G.A. is opposed by Sri Rajeshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the present writ petition is maintainable because the facts of the present case give rise to 'cause of action' is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court because the cause of action is of Allahabad and even a part of cause of action was not within the territorial jurisdiction of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div . ), JMFC Court Tiptur, District Tumkur Karnataka. So this Court is competent to entertain this writ petition against the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr .Div.) , JMFC Court Tiptur, District Tumkur, Karnataka.
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the criminal complaints were filed against the petitioners due to ulterior motive and they are unable to obtain the copies of the complaints filed against them and the orders passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr .Div .), JMFC Court Tiptur, District Tumkur, Karnataka, so they have not filed the abovementioned copies.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A., it is clear that the petitioners have filed only copies of the summons dated 20.12.2004 and 4.1.2005, no copy of the complaint and order passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr .Div.) JMFC Court Tiptur, District Tumkur has been filed, so without perusing the copy of the complaint and the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr .Div .) JMFC Court Tiptur, District. Tumkur, it is not possible to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide this writ petition on its merit and to determine the 'cause of action'.
7. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.