Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. Solomon, AOR Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Adv. Mr. Amit Pratap Shaunak, Adv. Mr. T.s. Nanda Kumar, Adv. Ms. S. Harini, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Ms. D Durga Devi, Adv. Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sonia Dube, Adv. Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Adv. Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saumya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jasleen Virk, Adv. For M/s.Legal Options, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are evident:

1. Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) is determined by the location where the cheque was presented for collection, not by the place of transaction or inconvenience (!) (!) (!) .

2. The power to transfer criminal cases under Section 406 of the Cr.P.C. is exercised only when it is deemed expedient for the ends of justice, which involves a careful balancing of factors such as the likelihood of miscarriage of justice, influence on witnesses, and overall fairness of trial (!) (!) (!) .

3. Mere inconvenience, language barriers, or the parties' preferences do not constitute sufficient grounds for transfer unless there is a reasonable apprehension that justice may not be impartially served in the current jurisdiction (!) (!) .

4. The law emphasizes that jurisdiction in criminal cases under the NI Act is primarily based on where the acts constituting the offence occurred, especially the place where the cheque was dishonoured or where the cheque was delivered for collection through an account (!) (!) (!) .

5. The amendments to the NI Act, including the insertion of Sections 142-A and 142(2), clarify and reinforce that cases should be tried in courts with proper territorial jurisdiction, specifically where the bank branch handling the cheque is situated (!) (!) (!) .

6. The non obstante clause in the amended NI Act does not override the powers of courts under the Cr.P.C. to transfer cases when it is in the interest of justice; the exercise of such power requires substantial reasons beyond mere convenience (!) (!) (!) .

7. The courts consistently hold that the primary consideration for transfer is the ends of justice, which involves ensuring a fair trial free from bias, influence, or undue hardship, rather than solely addressing the convenience of the parties (!) (!) (!) .

8. Transfer requests based solely on inconvenience, language difficulties, or the parties’ preferences are generally rejected unless supported by compelling evidence indicating a real risk of injustice or bias (!) (!) .

9. The procedural provisions and case law establish that jurisdictional issues are to be determined based on facts, evidence, and the location of acts constituting the offence, rather than on assumptions or preferences (!) (!) (!) .

10. Overall, courts tend to dismiss transfer petitions where the jurisdiction is proper and the grounds for transfer are based on inconvenience or extraneous factors, emphasizing the importance of a fair and impartial trial in the appropriate jurisdiction (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight that jurisdiction and transfer of criminal cases under the NI Act and Cr.P.C. are primarily guided by legal principles of territorial jurisdiction, the location of acts constituting the offence, and the overarching requirement of ensuring justice and fairness in trial proceedings.