High Court revises order on cheque complaint jurisdiction, emphasizes amended law

The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed a revision petition against an order returning a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, specifying that cases must be tried in the jurisdiction where the cheque was delivered or presented for payment. Referring to legal precedents, including Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case, the court set aside the order and directed the trial court to proceed with the complaint in compliance with the amended provisions and established legal principles.

---

---

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court to try the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on the jurisdiction of the court.
3. Applicability of the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another on returning complaints for presentation before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Court:
The petitioners filed a revision petition against an order returning their complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, after a cheque issued by the respondents was dishonored. The petitioners argued that the complaint was at a post-summoning stage and fixed for evidence of the accused, hence could not be returned by the Magistrate. The respondents acknowledged this fact but highlighted the amendments brought about by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015. The court noted the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case and the subsequent Ordinance, emphasizing the need for the complaint to be presented before a court of competent jurisdiction based on the amended Section 142 of the Act.

Impact of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015:
The Ordinance amended Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifying that the offense under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the cheque was delivered for collection or presented for payment. This amendment aimed to address the challenges posed by the judgment in Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case. The court highlighted the significance of these changes in determining the appropriate jurisdiction for trying cases related to dishonored cheques, emphasizing the need to comply with the amended provisions post the issuance of the Ordinance in 2015.

Applicability of Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's Case Judgment:
The court referred to para 20 of the Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod's case, which outlined the circumstances under which cases could proceed at the place where they were filed post the summoning and commencement of evidence. The court also cited a similar case, The Patiala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Seema, where the order returning the complaint was quashed, directing the trial court to proceed with the complaint. Considering the Ordinance, 2015, and the legal principles established by the Apex Court, the court concluded that the impugned order returning the complaint was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the petition was allowed, setting aside the earlier order and directing the trial court to proceed with the complaint in accordance with the amended provisions and legal precedents.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Punjab and Haryana High Court provides insights into the jurisdictional aspects, legislative amendments, and judicial interpretations concerning complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---