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 established legal jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.S.A. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. As both the transfer petitions, Transfer Petition [Criminal] No. 1/2026 & Transfer Petition [Criminal] no. 2/2026, are preferred on similar grounds by the same petitioner, though the respondents arraigned are different, both the criminal petitions are taken up for consideration at the motion stage itself having regard to the grounds urged for transfer of the two complaint cases, N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 & N.I.C.R. Case no. 3/2025, presently pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate [CJM], Chirang [‘the Trial Court’ for short].

3. One Md. Kurban Ali as the complainant has instituted the complaint case, N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 against the petitioner as the sole accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the petitioner-accused as the drawer of the cheques from a savings bank account maintained at State Bank of India [SBI], BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch. The complainant has alleged that when the cheques were presented for collection in his savings bank account maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, the cheuqes were returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the account of the petitioner-accused. After taking cognizance on the complaint, the Trial Court has issued processes [summons] to the petitioner for his appearance before the Trial Court. Transfer Petition [Criminal] no. 1/2026 has been preferred seeking transfer of the proceedings of N.I.C.R. Case no. 8/2025 from the Court of learned CJM, Chirang to the Court of learned CJM, Kamrup [M], Guwahati.

4. One Abu Baser Rezabul Hoque Ahmed has instituted the complaint case, N.I.C.R. Case no. 03/2025 before the Trial Court in connection with a cheque issued for an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. It is averred in the complaint that when the cheuqe was presented by the complainant in his bank account maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, the cheque was returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the savings bank account of the petitioner-accused. The complainant has stated that, after observance of due formalities, he had instituted the complaint under Section 138, N.I. Act and the Trial Court upon taking cognizance of the offence, issued process [summons] to the petitioner-accused for his appearance before the Trial Court.

5. In both the complaints, the complainant presented cheques, issued by the petitioner- accused, in their respective bank accounts maintained at SBI, BRPL Complex Dhaligaon Branch, District – Chirang, Assam.

6. As per sub-clause [a] of sub-section [2] of Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction, [a] if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or [b] if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Having regard to the afore-stated statutory provision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Sing , [2016] 2 SCC 75 , has held that Section 142[2][a] of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, as amended, has vested jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138, N.I. Act i