Natural jurisdiction in cheque-bouncing cases is determined by the location where the cheque is presented, and mere inconvenience does not justify transfer.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Hussain, learned counsel for the complainant/bank.

2. The petitioner invoking the powers under Section 447 BNSS is seeking transfer of N.I. Case No. 52/2023, pending in the court of learned Additional CJM, Mangaldoi, Darrang to the learned CJM, Barpeta.

3. Before proceeding further, the facts in a nutshell. The respondent Jahanara Begum is stated to have lent some money to the petitioner, amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- and by way of returning the same amount, the petitioner issued two cheques on his Axis Bank account at Guwahati on 18-07-2023. But upon presentation, the same cheques came to be dishonored due to stop payment by the drawer and account block situation covered in 2125. After doing the statutory formalities under the N.I. Act, the respondent, as complainant, initiated proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Learned Court at Mangaldoi, Darrang.

4. The primary contention of the petitioner as accused in the N.I. Act case is that due to the transactions, as part of the land transactions between the parties, two title suits are already pending in the District of Barpeta before the Court of the learned CJM, Barpeta, being T.S. No. 62 of 2023 and T.S. No. 66 of 2024.

5. It is stated and contended by the petitioner side that as connected matters, as the civil suits are pending in the District of Barpeta, therefore, the criminal proceeding under the N.I. Act arising out of the alleged cheque- bouncing should also be prosecuted in the District of Barpeta. The other contention of the petitioner side is that it will be inconvenient and expensive on his part to travel to Mangaldoi to defend the criminal proceeding under the N.I. Act. The petitioner contends that the respondent is residing at Barpeta.

6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner seeks transfer of the case to the court at Barpeta. The learned Counsel strenuously submits that as the connected title suits are stated to be pending at Barpeta, therefore, the instant criminal litigation should also be transferred to Barpeta. He also submits regarding the inconvenience of the petitioner to defend the criminal proceeding in the court at Mangaldoi.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondent/complainant is presently residing at Mangaldoi and that after issuance of the cheques, she presented it in her account in the State Bank of India at Mangaldoi and the written memo was received from the said Bank branch and therefore, she has rightly filed the complaint case in the said Jurisdictional Court and therefore, there is no case for transfer of the proceeding to the court at Barpeta.

8. Before proceeding further, the provisions of section 447 BNSS may be reproduced herein below –

447. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.-(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto; or

(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise; or

(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Sanhita, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order-

(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 197 to 205 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;

(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Cri