Point of Law: In terms of Section 407 Cr.P.C court can exercise jurisdiction for transferring cases.

JUDGMENT :

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.

1. Petitioner is the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was initially presented by him before the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rohru District Shimla. In view of subsequent amendment of the Act, the complaint was transferred to the Court at Sarkaghat District Mandi. Vide order dated 1.12.2022, the Sarkaghat Court has held that it does not have jurisdiction to try the complaint and further directed the petitioner/complainant to file appropriate application before appropriate Court for transfer of the complaint. In this scenario, the petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Section 482 read with Section 407 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking transfer of his complaint from Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. 2 Sarkaghat District Mandi to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Hamirpur.

2. As per office report, respondent stands duly served, however, no one has appeared on his behalf.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 1.12.2022 reflects that the respondent had not attended the proceedings before the learned Court below on 01.12.2022. Considering the nature of the order passed by the learned Court below on 01.12.2022 and in that background, the relief prayed for by the complainant/petitioner in the instant petition, no further steps are necessary for effecting compulsive service upon the respondent.

3. Facts:

(i) A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act hereinafter) was presented by the petitioner on 24.03.2015 in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrar Rohru, District Shimla. The complaint was presented in the said Court on the averred ground that the respondent-accused was permanent resident of village Dhara Post Office Pachunchh, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla and the cheque was issued by him in favour of complainant at Rohru, District Shimla. The presentation of complaint before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrar Rohru, was in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) 9 SCC 129 wherein the territorial jurisdiction for filing of the complaint was restricted to the location, where the cheque was dishonoured i.e. cheque was returned unpaid by the bank on which it was drawn.

(ii) The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2015, came into force w.e.f. 15.06.2015. By this amendment, verdict in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case was legislatively overturned. [Refer P. Mohanraj and Others vs. Shah Brothers Ispat Private Limited, (2021) 6 SCC 258].

(iii) Section 142 of the Act was amended by insertion of following sub-section 2:

“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.

(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.

Explanation: For the purpose of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.”

In Bridgestone India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 the Hon’ble Apex Court endorsed that under the provisions of Section 142(2) of the Act, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction.

(iv) In view of amendment of the Act, the complaint preferred by