Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries – Appellant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 608, 662, 670, 761, 977 & 850 of 2024
Decided on : 06-03-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are evident:
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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.
JUDGMENT :
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned transfer petitions are the same, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 608 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter.
3. This transfer petition filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) is at the instance of a proprietary concern through its proprietor with a prayer to transfer Criminal Case No. 4016 of 2021 titled as Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited v. M/s Shri Sendhur Agro and Oil Industries pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (UT) to the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, essentially on the ground that no cause of action could be said to have arose for the bank to lodge the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the N.I. Act) in Chandigarh.
4. In the memorandum of the transfer petition the following has been pleaded:
(a) Because in the facts and circumstance of the present case, the transaction between the Petitioner and the Respondent wholly happened in Coimbatore and the Courts in Coimbatore alone will have the jurisdiction to entertain the present criminal complaint. The Petitioner holds a savings Account in the Respondent's Coimbatore Branch and the loan was also processed in the same branch. All the previous EMI were also deducted from her Bank Account in Coimbatore and credited to the loan account maintained in the Coimbatore Branch. Therefore, the Court in Chandigarh will have no jurisdiction to entertain the present Criminal Complaint.
(b) Because in the facts and circumstances of the Instant/case, under Sec. 142 of the Act the Court within whose jurisdiction the Bank where the Cheque, is presented for collection or where the Cheque is presented for payment alone has the Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Sec.138 of the Act. Whereas the present Complaint does not satisfy any of the conditions under the Sec.142.
(c) Because in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there are already pending proceedings between the Petitioner and the Respondent in Coimbatore and the Respondent has purposefully filed the present proceedings in Ahmedabad only to harass the Petitioner with multiple proceedings in different States.
(d) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant case the Court in Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint as the Respondent's headquarters in Mumbai and it's the branch office in Coimbatore had solely processed the loan of the Petitioner. Hence the Court in Chandigarh where no cause of action arose will not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present proceedings.
(e) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Petitioner had opted to repay the EMI through automatic deduction facility and the same gets credited automatically into the loan account maintained by the Branch office in Chennai. The automatic deduction for the EMI is not branch specific. Therefore, the same does not satisfy the conditions under Sec. 142 for filing the complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act in Ahmedabad.
(f) Because in the present circumstances the present proceedings are initiated solely with an intent to harass the Petitioner to travel all the way to Chandigarh from Kangeyum only to attend the court proceedings. The Petitioner has been harassed by the Respondent for over 5 years by using anti-social elements therefore the Petitioner fears his safety to travel alone to Chandigarh to attend the proceedings.
(g) Because in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the Petitioner doesn't Know anyone in Chandigarh and does not even know the local language to effectively defen
Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act lies where the cheque is presented for collection; mere inconvenience does not justify transfer under Section 406 Cr.P.C.
Transfer of proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should consider the relative convenience of parties, especially in cases where there is a significant disparity in their socio-economic statu....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Jurisdiction to try complaint filed under Section 138 in respect of cheque delivered for collection through an account payee cheque, is vested in court within whose local ju....
Transfer petitions dismissed for lack of grounds, reaffirming jurisdiction based on statutory provisions of local bank branch presentation and emphasizing that convenience does not outweigh establish....
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the trial court for cases under Section 138, rejecting transfer petitions based solely on claims of inconvenience.
The jurisdiction for offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the location where the cheque was presented for collection, and a transfer of proceedings to the app....
Transfer of case – Offence of dishonour of cheque – Power of Supreme Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under Section 406 Cr.P.C. does not stand abrogated thereby in respect of offences u....
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
