Serial No. 18 SUPPLEMENTARY LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 155/2024 CrLM (399/2024)

KULDEEP SINGH …Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Bilal Ahmad, Advocate Vs.

KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT ...Respondent(s)

Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

12.12.2025

1. The respondent had earlier been kept waiting, and even today, when the matter was taken up, none appeared on behalf of the respondent, whereas the record of the Trial Court has already been received.

2. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that, insofar as the issue of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner agrees with the observation of the Trial Court that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra and the subsequent amendment by way of Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(the Act), the Court at Shopian lacked jurisdiction to continue with the complaint filed by the petitioner. To that extent, the impugned order is correct. However, instead of transferring the complaint to the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, which was the competent Court having jurisdiction, the Trial Court erroneously directed the return of the complaint to the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate Court. Such a direction, it is submitted, has no sanction of law and amounts to a patent illegality. On the date when the amendment was carried out in the Act, the complaint was already pending before the Trial Court and, therefore, in terms of the law declared in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod (supra), particularly paragraph 22 thereof, the Trial Court was under a legal obligation to transfer the complaint along with the entire record to the Court having proper jurisdiction.

3. From the record, it appears that the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent by filing a complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, which was diarised as File No. 2216/M on 10-11-2012. The respondent appeared and denied the allegation of dishonour of the cheque. The matter was thereafter referred to mediation, which, however, did not fructify. The complainant led evidence, and the incriminating material was put to the respondent, who thereafter sought to lead evidence in defence. Subsequently, when the matter was listed for final hearing, the respondent moved an application under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read with Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking the return of the complaint. The Trial Court, by virtue of the impugned order, directed the return of the complaint to the complainant on the ground that the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama.

4. Despite due notice of the present proceedings, the respondent has chosen not to appear. Considering the nature of the proceedings and the fact that the Trial Court record has already been received, the matter is liable to be decided in the absence of the respondent. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned order to the extent that it directs the return of the complaint. In Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., AIR 2014 SC 3519, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and considered earlier judgments in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510, Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. v. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (2001) 3 SCC 609, and Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 720. The Apex Court held that the jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 138 of the Act is determined by the place where the cheque is dishonoured. Consequent thereto, the legislature amended the Act in 2015