IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 554 of 2022 ========================================================== SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH POA KULDIPSINH MAHENDRASINH SARVAIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR HITESH S PADHYA(3877) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL Date : 17/11/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. The present revision application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assails the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District - Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to the “learned Magistrate”) in Criminal Inquiry No.12 of 2022 wherein, the learned Magistrate on 29.03.2022 ordered to return the criminal complaint back to the complainant along with the list and other documents by coming to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry.

2. The brief facts of the case is that opponent-respondent had taken a vehicle loan from the Complainant-applicant. The respondent failed to pay regular installments, and after repeated demands, the complainant issued Cheque No.

010125 dated 26/11/2021, drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Rajula Branch, for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, duly signed by him towards his legal dues under the loan account. The said cheque was drawn from the account maintained by the Opponent with Axis Bank, Rajula, District Amreli, State of Gujarat. The Complainant deposited the cheque with Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch, Taluka Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat. However, the cheque was dishonoured and returned with the memo bearing the endorsement “Account closed.” The Complainant thereafter issued a statutory notice dated 07/12/2021 from Mahuva under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As the Opponent failed to make the payment within the statutory period, the Complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Magistrate wherein, the learned Magistrate ordered to return the criminal complaint back to the complainant along with the list and other documents by coming to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry. Hence, the present application.

3. Though rule has been issued to the respondents, no one has appeared on their behalf.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant, submits that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that he lacks territorial jurisdiction by misinterpreting Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He points out that the Explanation to the said section provides that if a cheque is deposited for collection at any branch of the payee’s bank, it is deemed to be delivered to the branch where the payee holds the account. In this case, the cheque was deposited at Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch, and the dishonour intimation was also issued from the same branch. Thus, territorial jurisdiction lies with the Magistrate at Mahuva, District Bhavnagar. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly interpreted the judgment in Brijendra Enterprise C/o. Shail Enterprise v. State of Gujarat [2016 (0) AIJ-GJ-234963], which clearly holds that the complaint must be filed where the bank branch is situated if the cheque was deposited through an account. As the cheque in question was deposited at Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch under the Cash Management System, jurisdiction lies solely with the Mahuva Court. Hence, Mr. Bharda contends that the impugned order is contrary to law, and prays