Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Anil Srivastava & Anr. – Appellants
VERSUS
Balram Gupta & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 4509 of 2024 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12349 of 2024)
Decided On : 08-11-2024
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - Complaint under Section 138 filed by the first respondent - The learned Magistrate directed the transfer of the complaint to the proper court having jurisdiction at Banda, U.P. - The court set aside this order, stating that the issue of jurisdiction did not arise and directed the Magistrate to decide the complaint in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 6)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court clarified that there was no need to consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction as the appellants did not contest the jurisdiction of the court where the complaint was filed. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellants are accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The learned Magistrate had previously ordered the transfer of the complaint to Banda, U.P., which was contested by the appellants who sought to have the complaint disposed of by the same court.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the order for transfer and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Magistrate's order to transfer the complaint was warranted given that the appellants did not contest the jurisdiction of the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the issue of jurisdiction was not contested, the learned Magistrate should proceed to decide the complaint without transferring it.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The appellants are the accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) filed by the first respondent. By order dated 26th April, 2024, the learned Magistrate (Metropolitan Magistrate, North East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi) directed the first respondent to take steps to transfer this complaint to the proper court having jurisdiction at Banda, U.P. Therefore, the learned Magistrate passed the following order:
8. Other pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
It is hereby made clear that in case complainant fails to take necessary steps for getting the present matter transferred from this Court to the jurisdictional court of Banda, U.P. within a period of 6 months from today then the matter shall be deemed to be dismissed as withdrawn.”
4. Learned Counsel representing the appellants who are the accused states that it is not their case that the court in which complaint filed by the first respondent is pending has no jurisdiction to entertain and try.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, in fact, submitted that the prayer of the appellants is that the complaint should be disposed of by the same court in accordance with law.
6. As the issue of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate did not arise, there are no warrant for passing the order dated 26th April, 2024. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 26th April, 2024 passed by the learned Magistrate and direct that the Court of the learned Magistrate shall proceed to decide the complaint in accordance with law and there is no need to consider the issue of territorial jurisdiction of the said court.
7. In view of this direction, the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.2027 of 2024 filed by the appellants before the Delhi High Court does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
8. We clarify that notwithstanding setting aside the order dated 26th April, 2024, the application made by the appellant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will remain pending which shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the complaint.
9. The appeal is disposed of on above terms.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court clarified that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be decided by the original court when jurisdiction is not contested, setting aside the transfer order.
A trial court's jurisdiction in complaints under Section 138 must be contested before the magistrate, who can return complaints to the appropriate court if needed.
Jurisdiction for cheque dishonor cases is primarily determined by the location of the payee's bank, as articulated in Section 142 of the N.I. Act.
Point of Law : It is crystal clear that, when there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction, lack of territorial jurisdiction or ground of irregularity of procedure an order or a sentence awarded by a co....
Jurisdiction under Section 138 cannot be conferred solely by issuing statutory notices from a different location.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
