Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Jurisdiction under Section 138 NI Act - The primary legal principle is that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) must be filed in the court where the cheque is dishonoured, i.e., the place where the cheque was presented and returned unpaid. The jurisdiction is determined by the location of the dishonour, regardless of where evidence is led at pre-charge or pre-summoning stages ["KULDEEP SINGH vs KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873"], ["RASHMI MUKHI VS PAWAN KUMAR NATH - Uttarakhand"], ["Rajeev Pandey VS State of U. P. - Dishonour Of Cheque"], ["Ram Kishore Singhal VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Ashok Kumar Gupta VS Anil Gupta - Delhi"].
Transfer of Complaint to Correct Jurisdiction - If a complaint is filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction, it can be transferred to the proper court. The transfer is mandated by law, and the courts have clarified that even if proceedings have begun or evidence has been presented, the complaint should be transferred to the court with proper territorial jurisdiction ["KULDEEP SINGH vs KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873"], ["Ashok Kumar Gupta VS Anil Gupta - Delhi"], ["Ravindra Thakur VS Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Rakesh Chandra Rastogi VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Mir Engineers & Builders VS Sanjay Diesels - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Naveen Malhotra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Dishonour Of Cheque"], ["UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER vs P.S. SASIKUMAR - Kerala"], ["UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER vs P.S.SASIKUMAR - Kerala"], ["Guljari Lal VS Kotak Mahindra Bank - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Anil Srivastava VS Balram Gupta - Supreme Court"], ["NAVEEN MALHOTRA vs STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. - Delhi"].
Legal Precedents and Court Directions - The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing and that complaints filed in wrong jurisdictions must be transferred, even if evidence has been led or proceedings are at advanced stages ["Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873"], ["Ashok Kumar Gupta VS Anil Gupta - Delhi"], ["Ram Kishore Singhal VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"], ["Naveen Malhotra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Dishonour Of Cheque"], ["UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER vs P.S. SASIKUMAR - Kerala"], ["UNNIKRISHNAN MASTER vs P.S.SASIKUMAR - Kerala"]. The courts have emphasized that the complaint's maintainability is only at the place where the cheque was dishonoured, and subsequent complaints against the same drawer should be filed in the same court unless transferred ["KULDEEP SINGH vs KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["RASHMI MUKHI VS PAWAN KUMAR NATH - Uttarakhand"].
Procedure for Transfer - To get a complaint transferred, a party can file an application before the court where the complaint is pending, requesting transfer to the correct jurisdiction. The court, upon considering the facts, will direct the transfer to the proper court with territorial jurisdiction, which is generally the court where the cheque was dishonoured or where the offence was committed ["KULDEEP SINGH vs KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Ravindra Thakur VS Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Anil Srivastava VS Balram Gupta - Supreme Court"].
Exceptions and Special Circumstances - Even if proceedings have reached advanced stages (e.g., after recording pre-charge evidence or during Section 145(2) stages), courts have clarified that complaints should still be transferred to the proper jurisdiction, and proceedings should not be continued in the wrong court ["Rakesh Chandra Rastogi VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"], ["Naveen Malhotra VS State of Delhi - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 303"], ["Naveen Malhotra VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Dishonour Of Cheque"].
Analysis and Conclusion:To transfer a complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed before a court with no jurisdiction, the aggrieved party should file an application for transfer, citing the legal requirement that jurisdiction is based on where the cheque was dishonoured. Courts are bound to transfer such complaints to the correct territorial court, even if proceedings have started or evidence has been presented. The consistent judicial stance is that jurisdiction is fundamental and must be adhered to, and the process of transfer is a legal remedy available to correct jurisdictional errors ["KULDEEP SINGH vs KHAZIR MUHAMMAD BHAT - Jammu and Kashmir"], ["Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873"], ["Ravindra Thakur VS Sandeep Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"].
Filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) in the wrong court can create significant hurdles for both complainants and accused. Imagine discovering that your cheque bounce case is pending before a magistrate lacking territorial jurisdiction—especially before any pre-charge evidence has been recorded. What steps can you take to get it transferred to the correct court?
This is a common query: Complaint under Section 138 filed before the court of magistrate having no jurisdiction but before pre-charge evidence—how to get the complaint transferred to the court of correct jurisdiction? In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore the legal framework, procedural steps, and judicial insights to help navigate this issue effectively. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Jurisdiction is foundational in Section 138 cases, which deal with cheque dishonour. The Supreme Court has clarified that complaints should typically be filed in the court where the cheque was dishonoured or where the bank on which the cheque was drawn is located. The place of cheque issuance, presentation, or notice service is generally not determinative. Mohammed Irfan VS Saaswath Krit Wears - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3777Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873
Post the 2015 amendment to Section 142(2) NI Act, jurisdiction often aligns with the location of the payee's bank where the cheque was presented for collection. For instance, in a recent ruling, the court noted: Jurisdiction for cheque dishonor cases is primarily determined by the location of the payee's bank, as articulated in Section 142 of the N.I. Act. Sangram Keshari Routray vs Hexagon Infrastructures Private Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2328
Filing in the wrong court doesn't automatically invalidate the complaint but can lead to transfer or return, provided proceedings haven't advanced too far.
The pre-charge evidence stage is crucial. If evidence under Section 145(2) NI Act hasn't commenced—meaning no witness examination or only pre-summoning affidavits—the jurisdiction challenge remains viable. Once evidence starts post-summoning and accused appearance, courts deem the case transferred to the pending court, limiting further challenges. Naveen Malhotra VS State of Delhi - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 303Mohammed Irfan VS Saaswath Krit Wears - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3777
Here's a practical roadmap to seek transfer before pre-charge evidence:
In one case, a transfer petition under Section 447 BNSS sought moving proceedings from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar: Section 142 (2) of the N.I. Act so also facts detailed in the transfer petition, admittedly, the appropriate Court to try the complaint case filed by the Petitioner would be at Bhubaneswar. The court advised filing for return of the complaint instead of routine transfer. Sangram Keshari Routray vs Hexagon Infrastructures Private Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2328
Supreme Court rulings like Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod underscore that post-evidence commencement, jurisdictional objections are barred. Naveen Malhotra VS State of Delhi - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 303Mohammed Irfan VS Saaswath Krit Wears - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3777
Recent cases reinforce caution against routine transfers: The Court emphasized that a transfer should not be routinely granted and should only occur in exceptional circumstances. Sangram Keshari Routray vs Hexagon Infrastructures Private Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2328
Other precedents highlight related issues:- Proper notice is mandatory before filing; improper notice can lead to acquittal, indirectly tying into jurisdictional propriety. Lakhmichand Jain VS Nitin Jain - 2015 Supreme(MP) 312- Multiple cheques from linked transactions can be tried together, but jurisdiction remains key. Manjula VS Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2693Manjula VS Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. , Rep. By Its Authorised Signatory, T. Harikumar - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 1681
Limitation: If evidence has begun, the case sticks—timing is everything.
Always prioritize Section 139 presumption (cheque for discharge of debt) but rebuttals like stolen cheques require evidence. Girish Kantappa Shetty VS State of MaharashtraGirish Kantappa Shetty VS State of Maharashtra - 2003 Supreme(Bom) 1261
Sources Referenced:Naveen Malhotra VS State of Delhi - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 303Mohammed Irfan VS Saaswath Krit Wears - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3777Indraveer Singh VS State of Uttar Pradesh - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 873Sangram Keshari Routray vs Hexagon Infrastructures Private Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2328Lakhmichand Jain VS Nitin Jain - 2015 Supreme(MP) 312Manjula VS Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. , Rep. By Its Authorised Signatory, T. Harikumar - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 1681Manjula VS Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited - 2006 Supreme(Mad) 2693Girish Kantappa Shetty VS State of Maharashtra - 2003 Supreme(Bom) 1261Girish Kantappa Shetty VS State of Maharashtra
Facing a Section 138 jurisdiction issue? Early intervention can save time and resources. Share your thoughts below or consult a legal expert today.
#Section138, #ChequeBounce, #NILaw
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. ... The combined effect of Sections 142(2) and 142-A is that all pending complaints under Section 138 of the Act stood statutorily transferred to the Court#HL....
JURISDICTION - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT - Section 138, Section 142(2), Section 142A - The court discussed ... the jurisdictional provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly Section 138 concerning dishonored cheques, and ... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the initial cognizance was taken by a court lacking jurisdiction. ... jurisdiction to the Court having territorial jurisdiction and also other complaints #HL_....
Section 138 NI Act - Summoning Order - Section 202 Cr.P.C. ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for summoning under Section 138 of the NI Act, recording of statements under Sections ... 138 of the NI Act. ... The accused persons in the present case reside at Aurangabad while the complaint under Section 138 was filed before the Magistrate in Mundra. ... Further, learned counsel submits that these are specific a....
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138, 142, (2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 ... Complaint No. 138 NIA/20-III/2016 titled Ravindra Thakur vs. Sandeep Kumar filed by the petitioner is ordered to be transferred from the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2 Sarkaghat to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Hamirpur. ... In this....
Section 142 (2) of the N.I. Act so also facts detailed in the transfer petition, admittedly, the appropriate Court to try the complaint case filed by the Petitioner would be at Bhubaneswar.
were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 142 as if that sub-section had been in force at all material ... To clarify, regardless of whether evidence has been led before the Magistrate at the #HL_STA....
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 202 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Inquiry ... 138 of the N.I. ... 12, 24) Facts of the case: The applications challenged the issuance of process under Section ... The counsel for the respondent has not disputed this fact that the present applicants, against whom the complaint has been filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, are residing outside the territorial jurisdiction....
Negotiable Instruments Act - Jurisdiction - Section 138, Section 142 - M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. M/s. ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner sought to set aside orders related to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable ... This petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. has been preferred to set aside the order dated 11.05.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, in objections filed by the petitioner to the maintainability of the complaint#HL_EN....
138 of NI Act, stage of Section 145(2) had reached even before decision of Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, merely because ... case by petitioner cannot be a reason to transfer complaint cases preferred by respondent—Since in present complaint cases under Section ... Since in the present complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the stage of Section 145(2) had reached even before the decision of the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (supra), m....
Fact of the Case: The petitioner sought transfer of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ... Issues: Transfer of complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed relevant legal ... 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. ... Since in the present complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the stage of Section 145(2) had reached even before the decision of the....
Aggrieved thereby, this application has been filed. Thereafter the aforesaid complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of jurisdiction. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record and after following various citations has come to the conclusion of acquittal of the respondent holding that notice was not given properly as such the provisions of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted and has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused from the charge under Section138 of the Act.
Since the petitioner is a permanent resident of a place in Andhra Pradesh, she finds it inconvenient to defend the Petition pending before the said Court at Chennai and therefore, the said proceedings is liable to be quashed. The respondent filed the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.1130 of 2002 before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai having territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the insolvency Petition on I.P No.40 of 2001 was allowed on 18.4.2002.
The respondent filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.1130 of 2002 before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai having territorial jurisdiction. Ultimately, the insolvent petition on I.P.No.40 of 2001 was allowed on 18.4.2002. Since the petitioner is a permanent resident of a place in Andhra Pradesh, she finds it inconvenient to defend the petition pending before the said Court at Chennai and therefore, the said proceedings is liable to be quashed.
The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused, however, despite receiving the said notice failed to comply with the same and on the contrary sent a reply to the complainant alleging that the said cheque was stolen by the complainant. The charge was framed against the accused on 21-11-2002, Exh. 60. Thereupon, the complaint came to be filed before the said Judicial Magistrate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused, however, despite receiving the said notice failed to comply with the same and on the contrary sent a reply to the complainant alleging that the said cheque was stolen by the complainant. Thereupon, the complaint came to be filed before the said Judicial Magistrate under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The charge was framed against the accused on 21-11-2002, Exh. 60.
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
