Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth – Appellant
Versus
Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3194-3197 of 2025 (@ S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024)
Decided On : 25-07-2025
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142(2)(a) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Dishonour of cheque – Territorial Jurisdiction of Court for presentation of complaint – Section 142(2)(a) of N.I. Act vests jurisdiction apropos an offence under Section 138 thereof in the Court where cheque is delivered for collection, that is, through an account in Branch of Bank where payee maintains that account – Once it is established that at the time of presentation of cheques in question, appellant maintained his account with Kotak Mahindra Bank at its Mangalore Branch, he was fully justified in filing his complaint cases before Jurisdictional Court at Mangalore – Understanding to the contrary of Magistrate at Mangalore was erroneous and completely opposed to clear mandate of Section 142(2)(a) of N.I. Act – High Court proceeded to confirm erroneous order passed by Magistrate under wrong impression that appellant maintained his bank account at Opera House Branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mumbai – Impugned orders set aside – Jurisdictional Court at Mangalore to entertain and adjudicate complaint cases filed by appellant. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Short issue in these appeals is as to where appellant was required to file his complaints in relation to offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Findings of Court:
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore, shall entertain and expeditiously adjudicate complaint cases filed by appellant in accordance with law.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The primary issue in the case concerns the territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints related to offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) (!) .
The appellant maintained his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at its Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, and the cheques issued by the respondent were deposited at the Mumbai Branch of the same bank for credit to his account (!) .
The appellant had previously maintained his account at the Mumbai Branch but transferred it to the Mangalore Branch before the filing of the complaint (!) .
According to Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act, the jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 is vested in the court where the cheque is delivered for collection, i.e., the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account (!) .
The Court held that since the appellant’s account was with the Mangalore Branch at the time of presentation of the cheques, he was justified in filing the complaint there. The earlier assumption that his account was with the Mumbai Branch was incorrect (!) (!) .
The orders of the lower courts, which had held that the complaint should be filed at the Mumbai Branch, were found to be erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Section 142(2)(a) (!) .
The appeals were allowed, and the case was remanded for the competent court at Mangalore to entertain and adjudicate the complaint cases in accordance with law (!) .
All pending applications were to be closed, and the previous orders confirming the jurisdiction of the Mumbai court were set aside (!) .
These points summarize the court’s reasoning and final decision regarding the correct territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act based on the location of the bank account maintained by the appellant.
JUDGMENT
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue in these appeals is as to where the appellant was required to file his complaints in relation to offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity, ‘N.I. Act’).
3. The appellant’s case was that Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat borrowed a sum of Rs. 38,50,000/- from him and the respondent herein, viz., Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, being the wife of Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat, stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the loan. It appears that she also availed financial assistance from the appellant and four cheques came to be issued by her during September, 2023, in discharge of her husband’s liability and her own liability. These cheques were deposited by the appellant at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Opera House Branch, Mumbai. However, they were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds, as was intimated to the appellant on 15.09.2023. Thereupon, he filed four complaint cases in C.C. Nos. 1258, 1259, 1260 and 1261 of 2023 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore. However, by order dated 12.12.2023, the learned Magistrate returned the complaint cases for presentation before the jurisdictional Court, stating that the drawee bank was Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mumbai and, therefore, his Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint cases.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vide Criminal Petition Nos. 1237, 1720, 1769 and 1770 of 2024. However, the High Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed his petitions by order dated 05.03.3024. Hence, these appeals.
5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant asserts that the appellant maintains his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at its Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, and that he had merely presented the cheques issued by the respondent at the Bank’s Branch at Opera House, Mumbai, to be credited to the said account. He would contend that the High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the appellant maintained his bank account at the Opera House Branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank in Mumbai and on the strength of this wrong premise, the High Court confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate, returning the complaint cases on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
6. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit along with details of her own account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. Her account statement dated 25.11.2024 reflects the account number of the appellant as 0412108431. The appellant placed on record the letter issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, certifying that his account number in that Branch is 0412108431. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that the appellant earlier maintained his bank account with the Opera House Branch of the Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mumbai but, thereafter, he got it transferred to the Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch. Therefore, as matters stand, it is not in dispute that the appellant maintains his bank account with the Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, of the Kotak Mahindra Bank and merely deposited the respondent’s cheques at its Mumbai Branch for the purpose of crediting his account in Mangalore.
7. As regards territorial jurisdiction for instituting a complaint in relation to dishonor of a cheque, Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act makes it clear that an offence under Section 138 thereof should be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated. This provision, as it stands after its amendment in 2015, was considered in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 and this Court affirmed that Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act vests jurisdic
Dishonour of cheque – Section 142(2)(a) of N.I. Act vests jurisdiction apropos an offence under Section 138 thereof in the Court where cheque is delivered for collection, that is, through an account ....
Section 142 (2) of Negotiable Instruments Act read cognizance of offences.
Jurisdiction for offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is determined by the location of the bank where the cheque is presented for collection.
Territorial jurisdiction under S.138 of the NI Act may be established where any act related to the offence occurred.
Point of law : Section 142(2)(a) of the Act coupled with the explanation to the same makes it clear that even if the payee presents the cheque at another branch of his Bank, the home branch where he ....
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
