IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 jurisdiction branch of bank in which payee maintains account.
(2) Even though a person may draw a cheque on bank account of another person, it is not possible to hold such a person who draws cheque, liable for offence under Section 138 as he is not the one who maintains account with bank – When a person maintains account with a bank, he establishes relationship with such bank for management of his money – Such relationship forms substructure of all transactions in respect of account so maintained.
(3) For deciding jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a person maintains account in a particular bank – It is necessary to also ascertain specific branch of bank in which he maintains account to completely and unambiguously decide said question.

Headnote:
(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – 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 jurisdiction branch of bank in which payee maintains account, i.e., payee’s home branch, is situated – Only court within whose territorial jurisdiction drawee bank is situated, is empowered to proceed against an accused person under Section 138 – Enactment of Amendment Act, 2015 and introduction of Section 142(2) thereby, being a special legislation, occupies field over a general procedural legislation viz. Cr.P.C. – Payee cannot select jurisdiction for trial of an offence under Section 138 by presentation of cheque at a location of his choosing – Though presentation of cheque at any branch of payee’s bank is permitted by Act, 1881 for the purposes of commercial convenience, yet it cannot be said that such act of presentation confers jurisdiction on the court within whose territorial jurisdiction said bank branch may be situated – MM, Kolkata does not have jurisdiction to try the case. (Paras 36, 37 and 76)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142A – Dishonour of cheque – Jurisdiction to try complaint in instant case lied exclusively with JMFC, Bhopal – If matter had remained pending at the stage prior to recording of evidence, there would have been no difficulty in accepting deemed transfer of complaint under Section 142A(1) to court of JMFC, Bhopal from court of MM, Kolkata – However, court of MM, Kolkata returned complaint when it had already reached stage of recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of Act, 1881 – In such view of matter, allowing parties to contest complaint afresh before JMFC, Bhopal would amount to procedural impropriety that may prove to be detrimental to case of accused – To meet ends of justice, instant case be transferred to jurisdiction of MM, Kolkata and proceedings be resumed from the stage before order of return of complaint. (Paras 78 and 80)
(C) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Dishonour of cheque – Even though a person may draw a cheque on bank account of another person, it is not possible to hold such a person who draws cheque, liable for offence under Section 138 as he is not the one who maintains account with bank – When a person maintains account with a bank, he establishes relationship with such bank for management of his money – Such relationship forms substructure of all transactions in respect of account so maintained – For deciding jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a person maintains account in a particular bank – It is necessary to also ascertain specific branch of bank in which he maintains account to completely and unambiguously decide said question – Amendment Act, 2015 has worded Section 142(2)(b) in such a manner that even if a cheque is dishonoured elsewhere, jurisdiction for trial of complaint under Section 138 would lie with court within whose local jurisdiction branch of the drawee bank in which drawer maintains account, is situated. (Paras 50, 51, 53, 55 and 64)
Facts of the case:
Following two questions fall for consideration:
i. Whether after enactment of Amendment Act, 2015, court within whose local jurisdiction drawee bank is situated, has jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138?
ii. Whether after enactment of Amendment Act, 2015, complaint under Section 138 of Act, 1881 can be transferred to court within whose local jurisdiction drawee bank is situated, if recording of evidence under Section 145 has already commenced in said court?
Findings of Court:
Once it is identified that the cheque in question is an account payee cheque, the delivery must be to such branch in which the payee maintains the account as it is this branch of the bank that will receive the funds in the account maintained by the payee, from the drawee bank which will debit the drawer’s account to send such amount. However, the necessity of delivery of an account payee cheque to the home branch is only legal and not commercial.
Result : Transfer Petition allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in respect of a cheque delivered for collection through an account, is vested in the court within the local jurisdiction of the bank branch where the payee maintains their account. This is applicable even if the cheque was presented or dishonoured elsewhere (!) (!) .
The act of drawing a cheque on a bank account of another person does not automatically make the drawer liable under Section 138, as liability is tied to the person who maintains the account with the bank. Establishing the specific branch where the account is maintained is essential for determining jurisdiction (!) (!) .
For determining jurisdiction, it is necessary to identify the specific branch of the bank where the account is maintained, not merely the bank itself. The relationship between the account holder and the bank, as well as the location of the specific branch, is crucial (!) (!) .
The delivery of an account payee cheque is deemed to have occurred at the branch where the payee maintains their account, especially when considering the legal fiction created by the Explanation to Section 142(2)(a). This ensures that jurisdiction is based on the location of the payee’s "home branch" (!) (!) .
The stage at which proceedings are pending influences transferability of cases. If evidence has already been recorded, transferring cases to the appropriate jurisdiction may be procedurally improper, and courts may allow proceedings to continue from the stage they are in to avoid prejudice (!) (!) .
The enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015, clarified that jurisdiction for trial is limited to the court within the local jurisdiction of the bank branch where the cheque was delivered for collection or dishonoured, thus narrowing the scope of wider jurisdiction previously recognized (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that the place of offence and the specific acts constituting the offence are critical for establishing jurisdiction, rather than the location of the bank where the cheque was dishonoured or where notices were sent. The offence is localized at the place where the cheque is dishonoured or delivered for collection (!) (!) (!) .
The legal relationship between the drawer, drawee, and payee, along with the specific act of delivery and presentation, determines the jurisdiction. The "home branch" of the account holder plays a pivotal role in this determination (!) (!) (!) .
The legislative amendments and judicial interpretations aim to prevent misuse of jurisdictional provisions and ensure that trials are conducted in the appropriate local courts, based on the actual location of the relevant bank branches and acts (!) (!) (!) .
When proceedings have reached advanced stages, such as the recording of evidence, courts may exercise discretion to allow cases to proceed in the current jurisdiction or to transfer them, ensuring procedural fairness and avoiding prejudice (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

INDEX

A.	FACTUAL MATRIX
B.	ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
C.	ANALYSIS
(i)	Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts prior to the Amendment Act, 2015
a.	Analysis of the observations of this Court in Bhaskaran
b.	Analysis of the observations of this Court in Harman Electronics
c.	Analysis of the observations of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod
(ii)	Position of law as regards jurisdiction of courts after the enactment of the Amendment Act, 2015
a.	Meaning of the expressions “delivered for collection through an account” and “presentation for payment otherwise through an account”
b.	Meaning of the expression “maintains an account” under Section 142(2)
c.	Conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) and the Explanation thereto 38
(iii)	Determination of the issues framed
a.	Whether the MM, Kolkata has the jurisdiction to try the complaint?
b.	Whether a case of transfer of the complaint from the court of JMFC, Bhopal to MM, Kolkata is made out?
D.	CONCLUSION

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) Diary No. 24362 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter.

3. This transfer petition filed under Section 446 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, “BNSS”) read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is at the instance of a private limited company through its directors, praying for transfer of the Complaint Case No. RCT 2501046/2017 titled as "M/s HEG Limited vs Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors” pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. The transfer is prayed for on the ground that this Court, in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 had held that cases where the trial had reached the stage of summoning, appearance of accused, and the recording of evidence had commenced as per Section 145(2) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “Act, 1881”), those should continue in the same court where the trial was ongoing.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

4. The petitioner no. 1 herein (Jai Balaji Industries Ltd.) is the original accused no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “accused company”), while the other petitioners are the directors of the accused company. The respondent (M/s HEG Limited), is the original complainant (hereinafter referred to as the “complainant company” or “complainant”).

5. A cheque for the amount of Rs. 19,94,996/- was drawn by the accused company through its directors, against an invoice generated by the complainant company, dated 23.03.2014. The cheque was drawn by the accused on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kolkata and the same was deposited by the complainant on 19.06.2014 in its account maintained with the State Bank of India, Bhopal branch.

6. The cheque referred to above came to be dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds on 20.06.2025 pursuant to which, the complainant issued the statutory notice dated 11.07.2014 to all the accused persons through registered speed post A/D, demanding that the sum of Rs. 19,94,996/- be paid within a period of 15 days as prescribed under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 in lieu of the dishonoured cheque. The said notice was delivered on 14.07.2014.

7. The accused company replied vide the letter dated 26.07.2014 which was received by the complainant on 30.07.2014, wherein all the accused persons took the defence that the said cheque had been issued as a ‘Security Deposit’ and not in discharge of any enforceable debt. As a result, the complainant company filed the Complaint Case No. 406978

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided descriptions. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "disapproved" that suggest any case has been invalidated or overruled by subsequent judgments. Therefore, based on the available information, no case is identified as bad law.

[Followed / Affirmed]

None explicitly indicated. The descriptions mainly describe legal principles or jurisdictional rules, without referencing subsequent affirmations.

[Distinguished / Clarified / Interpreted]

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641: This case clarifies the elements constituting the offence under Section 138 and discusses jurisdiction, but there is no indication it has been distinguished or overruled.

Yogesh Upadhyay VS Atlanta Limited - 2023 2 Supreme 328: Clarifies the transfer of cases under Section 406 Cr.P.C. in relation to offences under Section 138, but no indication of subsequent treatment.

Bijoy Kumar Moni VS Paresh Manna - 2025 2 Supreme 109: Provides detailed interpretation of liability in case of companies and authorized signatories, but no indication of subsequent judicial treatment.

BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS INDERPAL SINGH - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1087: Clarifies jurisdiction based on the place where the cheque was dishonoured, referencing a legislative amendment, but no indication it has been overruled or criticized.

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth VS Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat - 2025 6 Supreme 281: Reiterates jurisdiction based on where the cheque was delivered for collection, consistent with BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS INDERPAL SINGH - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1087, with no indication of conflicting treatment.

Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. VS National Panasonic India Ltd. - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 1838: Establishes jurisdiction based on where notice was received or communicated; no subsequent treatment indicated.

K. Bhaskaran VS Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan - 1999 8 Supreme 608: Explains the acts constituting the offence of dishonour of cheque; no indication of subsequent judicial treatment.

[Legal Principles / Interpretations]

The cases primarily lay down legal principles or procedural rules regarding jurisdiction, liability, and the interpretation of Section 138 of the NI Act. They do not appear to be overruled or criticized based on the provided descriptions.

All cases are described in a manner that presents them as authoritative statements of law without mention of subsequent treatment or judicial criticism. However, since the list does not include references to later cases or treatment, the treatment status remains uncertain for all cases. Without explicit references to subsequent rulings, it is difficult to definitively categorize their current legal standing beyond their original statements.

The case BRIDGESTONE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS INDERPAL SINGH - 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 1087 mentions a legislative amendment (Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015), which could imply some evolution in law, but no indication it has been overruled or criticized.

Similarly, the case Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod VS State of Maharashtra - 2014 5 Supreme 641 discusses the nature of cause of action and jurisdiction, but no subsequent treatment is provided.

In summary, based solely on the provided descriptions, there is no clear evidence that any of these cases have been overruled or treated as bad law. All are presented as legal principles or clarifications without indication of subsequent judicial rejection or criticism.