The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to the N.I. Act, 1881, through sub-section (2) of Section 142 and Section 142-A, widened the territorial jurisdiction for trying complaints under section 138, superseding the previous dictum in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & another.

ORDER :

Mary Joseph, J.

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973.

2. In this petition, the complainant seeks to quash the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-Il (Forest Offences), Manjeri (for short, "the court below") in a complaint filed by him and numbered as ST Case No. 133/2014 by which the complaint lodged by him was returned for presentation before the proper court within a period of one month from the date of return for the reason that, the court has no jurisdiction to try the same in view of the dictum rendered by the apex court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & another [2014 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 904 : (2014) 9 SCC 129].

3. The complaint was lodged by the complainant, the petitioner herein before the court below seeking to prosecute the accused for an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act'). The complaint was taken cognizance of by the court below and numbered as ST Case No. 133/2014. The allegation in the complaint was that the cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- drawn on Cudallur Branch of IDBI Bank and issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, was bounced by the bank for the reason of insufficiency of funds in the account maintained by the accused with the Bank. After complying with the statutory formalities of issuance of notice and within the statutorily provided time, the complaint was preferred, the copy of which is appended with this petition as Annexure A. At the relevant time when the complaint was presented, the apex court has rendered Dashrath Rupsingh's case (supra), wherein it was held that the territorial jurisdiction in the matter of a complaint lodged under section 138 of the N.I. Act is restricted to the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, i.e., where the cheque is dishonoured by the Bank on which it is drawn. The dictum in the case reads as follows:

"21. The interpretation of section 138 of the N.I. Act which commends itself to us is that the offence contemplated therein stands committed on the dishonour of the cheque, and accordingly JMFC at the place where this occurs is ordinarily where the complaint must be filed, entertained and tried. The cognizance of the crime by JMFC at that place however, can be taken only when the concomitants or constituents contemplated by the section concatenate with each other. We clarify that the place of the issuance or delivery of the statutory notice or where the complainant chooses to present the cheque for encashment by his bank are not relevant for purposes of territorial jurisdiction of the complaints even though non-compliance therewith will inexorably lead to the dismissal of the complaint. It cannot be contested that considerable confusion prevails on the interpretation of Section 138 in particular and Chapter XVII in general of the N.I. Act. The vindication of this view is duly manifested by the decisions and conclusion arrived at by the High Courts even in the few cases that we shall decide by this judgment. We clarify that the complainant is statutorily bound to comply with section 177, etc of Cr.P.C., 1973 and therefore the place or sites where the Section 138 complaint is to be filed is not of his choosing. The territorial jurisdiction is restricted to the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, which in the present context is where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn."

4. The court below passed Annexure B order on 23.10.2014 in ST Case No. 133/2014 holding that it has no jurisdiction to try the complaint on the basis of the dictum of the Apex Court extracted herein above and accordingly returned the complaint to the complainant for presentation before the proper court within one month from the date of return.

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 [Act 26 of 2015]