Jurisdiction for cheque dishonor complaints is determined by the location of the bank where the account is maintained, and transfer requests cannot be granted based solely on inconvenience.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/bank.

2. The petitioner invoking the powers under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is seeking the transfer of NI case No. 334 c/2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Guwahati to the court at Silchar, Cachar, where the petitioner stated to be staying, also having his bank account.

3. The respondent/complainant is the State Bank of India through its Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB), Guwahati represented by its Chief manager.

4. In a short compass, the facts are that the petitioner, as the Managing Director of a firm/concern namely, M/s Asom Pyrolysis Pvt. Ltd., took cash credit limit of Rs. 55 lakhs and a term limit of Rs. 46 lakhs from the State Bank of India, Silchar, Cachar. It appears that due to alleged non- payment, the loan became NPA with regard to which an original application was moved by the bank before the DRT and during its pendency, the petitioner issued a cheque No. 946111 dated 31.10.2022 for Rs. 5 lakhs drawn on SBI, Arunachal, Silchar. The cheque came to be dishonored leading to a complaint giving rise to NI Case No. 334 c/2023. The return memo is dated 23.11.2022. The main contention of the petitioner is that the loan was taken from the State bank of India branch at Silchar and all documentation was done there. Moreover, the petitioner is also a resident of Silchar maintaining his bank account there. The petitioner also raised an issue of whether the cheque bouncing criminal proceeding should be maintained in the context of the DRT matter as well as a recovery proceeding initiated by the bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

5. Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who supporting his petition and his grounds, strenuously submits that the petitioner has good and justified grounds for seeking the transfer and that the respondent/complaint, being a large corporate organization would not suffer any prejudice. It is also contended and submitted that the State Bank of India has a presence at Silchar, and therefore, such a transfer will not cause any difficulties for the complainant bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a trial at Guwahati might cause prejudice, thereby affecting his constitutionally enshrined right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he has referred to a case law - K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under-

“30. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. In the present case, the circumstances as recited above are such as to create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public at large in general and the petitioner in particular that there is every likelihood of failure of justice….”

6. Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/bank drawing attention to the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the complainant bank. The learned counsel has contended that this proceeding has no merit and was filed to delay the matter. He submitted that the cheque in question was presented in the branch of the complainant pertaining to stress assets like the bad loan of the petitioner, and therefore, the complaint filed at Guwahati was done so in its natural territorial jurisdiction. It is also stated and submitted that though the bank