IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 552 of 2022 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ============================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ============================================

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 ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 23/03/2026

JUDGMENT

Leave to amend. Amendment be carried out forthwith.

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 2^nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District - Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to the “learned Magistrate”) in Criminal Inquiry No.07 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 the Opponent had taken a vehicle loan from the Applicant/Complainant. The Opponent failed to pay regular installments, and after repeated demands, issued Cheque No.000044 dated 24.11.2021, drawn on the HDFC Bank, Mahuva Branch, for an amount of ₹1,75,000/-, duly1,75,000/-, duly signed by him towards his legal dues as per the loan account. The cheque was drawn on the account maintained by the Opponent with the HDFC Bank, Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, State of Gujarat. The Complainant deposited the said cheque at Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch, Taluka Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat. The cheque was dishonoured and returned with the memo bearing the endorsement “Funds Insufficient.” The Applicant/Complainant thereafter issued a statutory notice from Mahuva under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dated 07/12/2021. As the Opponent failed to make the payment within the statutory time period, the Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the 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) Learned Advocate Mr. Z. F. Bharda, 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