Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour complaints and the bar on recalling summons after process is issued

A Magistrate has no power to recall or review summons once process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C.; Section 201 Cr.P.C. operates only at the threshold where the complaint is presented before a court lacking competence to take cognizance. After summons issue, any challenge must be taken before a higher court, not by invoking Section 201. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction lies where any constituent act of the offence occurs, including drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, or non-payment. On the stated facts, Mumbai had jurisdiction because material acts, including supply of goods, handing over of cheques, and issuance of notice, occurred there.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate, after issuing summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C.; (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable at Mumbai on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate, after issuing summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., can recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C.

Analysis: Section 201 Cr.P.C. applies at the threshold when a complaint is presented before a Magistrate lacking competence to take cognizance. Once cognizance is taken and process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. on satisfaction that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the criminal procedure does not confer any power of review or recall on the Magistrate. In such a situation, the remedy, if any, lies before the higher court and not by resort to Section 201 Cr.P.C. after issuance of summons.

Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to recall the summons under Section 201 Cr.P.C. after issuing process under Section 204 Cr.P.C.; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable at Mumbai on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Jurisdiction under Section 138 is determined by the components of the offence, including drawing of the cheque, presentation, dishonour, issuance of notice, and failure to pay within the stipulated period. Where one of these constituent acts occurs within a local area, the court having territorial jurisdiction over that area can entertain the complaint. On the admitted facts, business dealings were at Mumbai, the goods were supplied from Mumbai, the cheques were handed over at Mumbai, and the statutory notice was issued from Mumbai. These facts were sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Magistrate at Mumbai.

Conclusion: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable at Mumbai; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, the order of the Sessions Judge was restored, and the complaints were held to be maintainable before the Magistrate at Mumbai.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate cannot recall summons once process is issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in the absence of review power, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable in any court within whose territorial jurisdiction any constituent act of the offence occurred.

---