Objections to territorial jurisdiction must be raised timely; if belated, they can be dismissed to prevent injustice, especially after trial advancement.

ORDER :

SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI, J.

1.This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2.The Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order dated 21st February, 2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in Crl. Revision No.60/92 of 2023. By the said order, the learned Revisional Court set aside the order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Signature Not Verified Digitaly Signed J.M.F.C. (L.R.), Bhubaneswar in 1 C.C. Case No.2686 of 2017 Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Mar-2026 17:50:09 and directed that the complaint be returned for presentation before the Court possessing the appropriate territorial jurisdiction. The present petition thus questions the legality and propriety of the revisional order whereby the earlier decision of the learned Magistrate to entertain the complaint was interfered with on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

3.The Petitioner, being the complainant, instituted 1C.C. Case No.2686 of 2017 before the learned J.M.F.C. (LR), Bhubaneswar under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “N.I. Act”), alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C.

4.The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 23.04.2017 the Opposite Party approached the Petitioner at Bhubaneswar and borrowed a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- as a friendly loan, assuring that the said amount would be repaid within a period of one month. However, despite repeated demands made by the Petitioner after the expiry of the stipulated period, the Opposite Party failed to discharge the liability. Eventually, in order to liquidate the outstanding dues, the Opposite Party issued an account payee cheque bearing No.046325 dated 25.05.2017 for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- drawn on Indian Bank, Bhubaneswar Branch. The said cheque was thereafter presented by the Petitioner through his bank, namely Indian Bank, Choudwar Branch, Cuttack, on 26.05.2017. Upon presentation, the cheque was returned unpaid on the very same day with the endorsement “Funds Insufficient”, thereby giving rise to the cause of action for initiating the present proceeding. Statutory notice dated 02.06.2017 was issued under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act, which was received by the Opposite Party on 03.06.2017. Despite receipt of the said notice, the cheque amount was not paid within the statutory period.

5.Subsequently, the Petitioner instituted a complaint before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar alleging commission of the offence arising out of the dishonour of the aforesaid cheque. Upon taking cognizance of the matter, the case was later transferred to the Court of the learned J.M.F.C. (L.R.), Bhubaneswar for the purpose of trial and disposal in accordance with law.

6.During the course of the trial, the Petitioner–Complainant entered the witness box and was examined as well as cross- examined on 18.11.2019. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded on 13.09.2022, following which the matter was posted for adducing defence evidence. The case thus had substantially progressed in the trial and had reached the stage of defence evidence.

7.At that juncture, the Opposite Party/accused filed a petition on 13.09.2020 raising an objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the learned trial Court and questioning the maintainability of the complaint in view of the provisions contained in the Negotia