Territorial jurisdiction for cheque dishonour complaints follows the payee's bank branch where the account is maintained for collection.

Under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 complaint lies with the court where the payee's bank branch maintaining the account is situated when the cheque is delivered for collection through that account. The statutory explanation deems delivery at any branch of the payee's bank to be delivery at the branch where the account is maintained, and this governs the jurisdictional inquiry. Because the cheque was crossed and sent for collection through the complainant's banking arrangement for credit into the Ahmedabad account, the Ahmedabad court had jurisdiction. The quashing challenge failed and the trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad had territorial jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the cheque was presented through the complainant's banking arrangement at a branch outside Ahmedabad but the credit was to be received in the complainant's Ahmedabad account.

Analysis: The amended jurisdictional scheme under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as read with Section 142A, requires a complaint under Section 138 to be tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account is situated, where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. The explanation to Section 142(2) deems delivery at any branch of the payee's bank to be delivery at the branch where the account is maintained. The cheque in question was crossed and was not presented over the counter; it was delivered for collection through the complainant's banking arrangement and the credit was to flow into the complainant's account at Ahmedabad. The plea that the matter fell under the alternative limb concerning presentation otherwise through an account was rejected.

Conclusion: The Ahmedabad court had territorial jurisdiction and the challenge to the complaint and the Magistrate's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The application for quashing was dismissed and the trial court was directed to proceed with the complaint expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the cheque is delivered for collection through the payee's account, territorial jurisdiction lies with the court having jurisdiction over the branch where that account is maintained, and the statutory explanation deeming such delivery controls the jurisdictional inquiry.

---