Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 138, 142(2)(a) — Territorial jurisdiction — Complaint for dishonour of cheque — Place of filing Held: After the 2015 amendment, S. 142(2)(a) mandates that the complaint must be filed before the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the branch of the payee’s bank is situated, where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. Therefore, jurisdiction lies at the place where the payee maintains his account, not where the drawee bank is located nor where cheque is physically tendered for collection. [Relied on: Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 138, 142(2)(a) — Territorial jurisdiction — Complaint for dishonour of cheque — Place of filing

Held: After the 2015 amendment, S. 142(2)(a) mandates that the complaint must be filed before the Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the branch of the payee’s bank is situated, where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.

Therefore, jurisdiction lies at the place where the payee maintains his account, not where the drawee bank is located nor where cheque is physically tendered for collection.

[Relied on: Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 200, 482 — NI Act complaint — Magistrate returning complaint for want of jurisdiction — Impermissible where payee maintains account locally

Where the complainant’s bank account is situated within the territorial limits of the Magistrate who returned the complaint, such return order is erroneous and contrary to S. 142(2)(a). High Court’s refusal to interfere under S. 482 also unsustainable.

Practice and Procedure — Misapprehension of fact by High Court — Correction by Supreme Court

High Court wrongly assumed that complainant maintained account in Mumbai, whereas on record the account had been transferred to Mangalore Branch. Supreme Court corrects factual error; complaint maintainable before Mangalore Court.

Result

Appeals allowed. Orders of High Court and Magistrate set aside. Magistrate directed to entertain and adjudicate complaints expeditiously.

ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Background

• Appellant claimed loan transactions totaling ₹38.50 lakhs with respondent's husband; respondent stood guarantor and also availed loans.

• Four cheques issued (September 2023) towards liabilities.

• Cheques dishonoured on 15.09.2023 due to insufficient funds.

2. Procedural History

• Appellant filed four complaints before JMFC, Mangalore.

• Magistrate returned complaints citing lack of territorial jurisdiction, reasoning that drawee bank (Mumbai) controlled jurisdiction.

• High Court affirmed in petitions under S. 482 CrPC.

• Appellant appealed to Supreme Court.

3. Core Legal Question

For territorial jurisdiction in dishonoured cheque cases, where should the complaint be filed — at location of drawee bank, or location where payee maintains account?

4. Legal Framework Applied

Section 142(2)(a) NI Act (as amended in 2015)

Jurisdiction lies:

“... where cheque is delivered for collection through an account, [i.e.,] the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account”

Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75

Supreme Court interpreted amended S. 142(2)(a) to mean:

• Complaint must be before Court where payee’s bank branch is located.

5. Findings

(a) Appellant’s account location

Evidence showed:

• Account originally at Kotak Mahindra, Mumbai.

• Later transferred to Kotak Mahindra, Mangalore Branch.

This was undisputed before Supreme Court.

(b) Consequence

Thus:

• Jurisdiction vested with Mangalore Court.

• Magistrate’s return order and High Court affirmance were contrary to S. 142(2)(a).

6. Holding

• Supreme Court sets aside both orders.

• Mangalore Magistrate directed to entertain and adjudicate complaints expeditiously.

7. Significance

This judgment sharply reiterates:

1. Post-2015 amendment jurisdiction rule,

2. The centrality of payee’s bank account location,

3. That factual misapprehensions by High Courts must be corrected,

4. That complaints cannot be returned merely because cheque was deposited in another city, if payee’s account is elsewhere.