Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Courts have held that FIRs can be lodged in any police station, but the investigation and trial must be conducted in the jurisdiction where the offence or act took place ["OM PRAKASH VS STATE OF U. P. - Dishonour Of Cheque"], ["01400051729"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["State of Arunachal Pradesh VS Kamal Agarwal - Supreme Court"]- ["Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. VS HEG Ltd - Supreme Court"]- ["Vikas Lakshmipat Bafna and Another v. Union of India and Others - Chhattisgarh"]- ["Kakkirala Srihari vs Rampalli Srinivas - Telangana"]- ["Kakkirala Srihari vs Rampalli Srinivas - Telangana"]- ["01400051729"]- ["Rajendra Panwar S/o Vishnu Prasad VS State of Madhya Pradesh - Crimes"]- ["State of Himachal Pradesh VS Shiv Lal Sharma, S/o. Late Sh. Chander Mani Sharma - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["OM PRAKASH VS STATE OF U. P. - Dishonour Of Cheque"]
In the world of bounced cheques and financial disputes, one common headache for litigants is figuring out where to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Imagine this scenario: You receive a cheque that bounces, you lodge an FIR in State A for convenience, but the drawer's bank account is in State B, and the cheque was dishonoured there. Does the FIR location dictate jurisdiction, or does the bank matter more? This question—Territorial Jurisdiction in Case FIR is Lodged in Different State but Bank Account Attached in Different State—arises frequently and can lead to case dismissals, transfers, or endless delays.
This blog post breaks down the legal principles, Supreme Court rulings, legislative amendments, and practical insights to help you navigate this maze. Remember, this is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a lawyer for your case.
The territorial jurisdiction for filing a criminal complaint under Section 138 NI Act is primarily determined by the location where the cheque is dishonoured by the bank on which it is drawn. Lodging an FIR in a different state does not automatically confer jurisdiction unless the offence is also deemed to have occurred there, typically where the cheque was dishonoured or the bank account is maintained. Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460
Key legislative changes reinforce this: The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, and subsequent Bill clarify that jurisdiction lies with the court where the bank branch dishonoured the cheque or where the drawer's account is maintained. This aims to curb forum shopping—filing cases in distant courts to harass the accused. Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - Dishonour Of Cheque (2017)Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1807
Courts have consistently held that the place, situs or venue of judicial inquiry and trial must logically be restricted to where the drawee bank is located, i.e., where the cheque is dishonoured upon presentation and not where the complainant’s bank is situated.Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460
For example, in cases where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, jurisdiction vests in the court where the payee's or holder's bank (for collection) or the drawer's bank branch is situated. In one ruling: Since the complainant's bank is situated at Panchkula and the cheque was dishonoured at Panchkula, therefore, the Court at Panchkula has the territorial jurisdiction.Anil Jain VS Sandeep Singh Kochhar - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 628
The Supreme Court in Yogesh Upadhaya (Supra) and others reiterated: The offence is localized at the place of dishonour, overriding FIR lodging spots. Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - Dishonour Of Cheque (2017)Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1807
Lodging an FIR elsewhere, without ties to the dishonour or account location, typically fails to confer jurisdiction. Lodging an FIR in a different state, without the offence having occurred there (i.e., cheque dishonour or bank account maintained there), does not automatically confer jurisdiction.Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460
This mirrors broader criminal law: FIRs can be lodged anywhere (even zero FIRs), but trial jurisdiction follows the offence's occurrence under CrPC Sections 177-181. In a cheque case, that's the dishonour site. For instance, in Dr. Brojen Gogol, jurisdiction hinged on where the bank dishonoured the cheque. Navinchandra N. Majithia VS State Of Maharashtra - 2000 6 Supreme 114
Other precedents echo this. In a Panchkula matter, the court restored a complaint because the cheque was presented and dishonoured there, and the legal notice was sent from Panchkula, aligning with K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. Anil Jain VS Sandeep Singh Kochhar - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 628
In Vyas Narayan Agrawal v. Jagdish Gupta alias Raju Gupta - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 117, a trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as cause arose outside its territory, despite cheque return info reaching elsewhere. Vyas Narayan Agrawal v. Jagdish Gupta alias Raju Gupta - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 117
While the rule is clear, exceptions may arise:- Payee Presentation: If cheque presented for collection via payee's account, that court's jurisdiction may apply. Anil Jain VS Sandeep Singh Kochhar - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 628- Transfers for Justice: Courts can transfer under Section 406 CrPC for convenience, balancing parties' positions. Golla Naraesh Kumar Yadav etc. VS Kotak Mahindra Bank - 2025 Supreme(SC) 2003- Zero FIRs: Allowed, but investigation transfers to proper jurisdiction; doesn't alter trial court. Rajesh Kacchap VS State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Home, Jail & Disaster Management - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 29
However, documents stress the general rule: Stick to dishonour or account location to avoid dismissals. SACHEE AGRO TRADING PVT. LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2016 Supreme(Bom) 610
To sidestep pitfalls:1. Verify Bank Locations: Confirm dishonour branch and drawer's account before filing.2. File Correctly: Lodge complaint in the jurisdictional court—FIR elsewhere won't help.3. Avoid Forum Shopping: Risk dismissal or transfer, wasting time/money.4. Legal Notice Caution: Send from anywhere, but it doesn't shift jurisdiction post-amendments.5. Seek Transfers if Needed: For genuine hardship, petition higher courts. Golla Naraesh Kumar Yadav etc. VS Kotak Mahindra Bank - 2025 Supreme(SC) 2003
Under Section 138 NI Act, territorial jurisdiction pivots on cheque dishonour or drawer's bank account location, not FIR filing state. Amendments and rulings like Yogesh Upadhaya localize offences to prevent abuse. Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - Dishonour Of Cheque (2017)Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1807
Key Takeaways:- Prioritize drawee bank over FIR spot.- Use 2015 amendments to guide filings.- Consult professionals to check jurisdiction early.
This framework promotes fair trials and efficiency. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert familiar with your facts.
References:1. Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries VS Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 460: Jurisdiction at dishonour place.2. Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - Dishonour Of Cheque (2017): Amendments on account maintenance.3. Mahendra Kumar Kedarnath Modi VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1807: Localization of offence.4. Anil Jain VS Sandeep Singh Kochhar - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 628: Panchkula jurisdiction example.
#Section138 #ChequeBounce #NIACTJurisdiction
Normally, in a given case where issue is of territorial jurisdiction we could have directed to transfer the investigation or the trial to the State where the cause of action would lie but in the present case, we find that no offence as such is made out. 16. ... the FIR was just a misuse of the process of law and the same ought to be quashed, in view of the law laid down in case of State of Haryana vs. ... Whereas, the Rajasthan High Court proceeded ....
The JMFC, Adoor accepted the said submission canvassed by the accused and held that he had no territorial jurisdiction to try the case as the cheque was dishonoured in a different district of Kerala. ... Therefore, presentment creates a relationship between the drawee bank and the payee (in case of an account bearer cheque) or the payee’s bank (in case of an account payee cheque). 48. ... , as the case#HL....
course, as the case may be, maintains the account." ... payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. ... Since the complainant's bank is situated at Panchkula and the cheque was dishonoured at Panchkula, therefore, the Court at Panchkula has the territorial jurisdiction. ... :- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account#HL....
of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. ... delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account). ... having jurisdiction of the area where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account of the Branch of the Bank where payee and holder maintain their accounts. ... The territorial jurisdiction i....
In the present case, the record discloses that one set of cheques was presented in a bank at Medak District, while the other cheques were presented in a bank at Hyderabad, thereby conferring jurisdiction on two different Courts. ... respectively, conferring separate territorial jurisdiction on the concerned courts. ... However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the complaints were filed strictly in accordance with territorial #....
In the present case, the record discloses that one set of cheques was presented in a bank at Medak District, while the other cheques were presented in a bank at Hyderabad, thereby conferring jurisdiction on two different Courts. ... respectively, conferring separate territorial jurisdiction on the concerned courts. ... However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the complaints were filed strictly in accordance with territorial #....
of the case on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. ... Subsequently, the petitioner was intimated at Bhatapara by his Bank that the said cheque which was sent for collection to the Punjab National Bank has been returned back with the note that the account does not have ' sufficient funds - . ... as raised by the complainant as according to the Trial Court the cause of action that arose in the instant case was outside the territorial jur....
presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. ... However, if the payee or holder in due course presents a bearer cheque for encashment otherwise through an account, the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the Bank where the drawer maintains the account shall have jurisdiction to try the offence. a href="./.. ... holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated;....
the State Bank at Chandigarh pursuant to the negotiation, however, in the present case any such cause event has not taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench. ... Thereafter, the first informant lodged the first information report at Shillong. ... In the said case the appellant before the Apex Court had his Corporate Office at Chandigarh. The State Bank of Sikkim was respondent No. 1 and the #HL....
somewhere in Bhopal ( State of Madhya Pradesh) FIR is lodged in Railway at Bhopal. The complaint ought to have returned for filing before proper Forum. ... Thereafter, on reaching to Aurangabad report was lodged at Aurangabad and FIR was registered. Said FIR is also transferred to Bhopal. 14. ... In the case in hand we have already discussed that the complainant has opened the account at Pune. The base bank of I....
The question of territorial jurisdiction in a civil case is different from a criminal case. The question of territorial jurisdiction of a criminal Court is a matter of substance and not mere procedure. The next issue debated before this Court was jurisdiction of Panchla police to carry on investigation in the matter. The question of applicability of the provisions under sections 178 to 181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an issue which has to be addressed at the first instance when a doubt arises as to jurisdiction of two Courts to continue with the enquiries and trial....
Explanation given by accused appellants that informant's side had surrounded the way is not appealable. Injured were also examined just after registering the case on same day. In cross version F.I.R. was lodged on next day evening at different police station beyond territorial jurisdiction. It is true that F.I.R. of any incident can be lodged at any police station within or beyond territorial jurisdiction but it is surprising that no effort was made to lodge F.I.R. at police station Zamania on the same day by accused appellants.
This very fact of entrustment is a part of cause of action, which has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition notwithstanding the fact that the ejahar was lodged in a different State. The crucial part of the allegations made in the ejahar is entrustment of property to the petitioners at Guwahati.
18. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for petitioner’s submission that since arrest order was issued in Delhi and subsequently, the petitioner was also arrested in Delhi constitutes a cause of action is misplaced. Going by the petitioner’s logic, in all criminal cases, where an accused is arrested in a State different from where FIR is lodged, two High Courts would have jurisdictions under Article 226 of the Constitution, namely, one under whose territorial jurisdiction the FIR had been registered and the other where the accused had been arrested. In our view the mere ....
3. Office has raised objection with respect to territorial jurisdiction of this Court because of the reason that F.I.R. was lodged in territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar i.e., within the territorial jurisdiction of Patna High Court and criminal case in pursuance of F.I.R. as P.S. Case No. 27/2007 is also pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera in the district of Samastipur (Bihar) falling within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Bihar.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
