Cheque dishonour jurisdiction follows the payee's bank branch after amendment, and convenience cannot override statutory venue.

After the amendment to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a cheque dishonour complaint delivered for collection through the payee's account is triable where the payee's bank branch is situated. The drawer's bank location does not displace that statutory jurisdiction. Applying this rule, the complaint was held triable at Bhagalpur, as the cheque was presented through the complainant's account there. A separate case pending at Katihar, arising from a different transaction, did not justify transfer on forum convenience under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The transfer request was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was triable at Bhagalpur or Katihar after the amendment to Section 142(2). (ii) Whether the complaint case should be transferred on the ground of forum convenience under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was triable at Bhagalpur or Katihar after the amendment to Section 142(2).

Analysis: The amended jurisdictional rule under Section 142(2) provides that where a cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the Court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated has jurisdiction. The earlier wider approach to territorial jurisdiction stood superseded by the amendment, and the cheque being presented through the complainant's account at Bhagalpur brought the case within the jurisdiction of the Bhagalpur Court. The fact that the drawer's bank was at Katihar did not displace this statutory position.

Conclusion: The complaint was triable at Bhagalpur, and the objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint case should be transferred on the ground of forum convenience under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The other criminal case pending at Katihar arose from a different transaction and different offences, and therefore did not create a legal basis for transfer of the cheque dishonour complaint. The circumstances did not justify interference on forum convenience, especially when the statutory jurisdiction already lay at Bhagalpur.

Conclusion: No ground for transfer was made out, and the prayer for transfer was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order rejecting transfer failed, and the proceeding was dismissed with the Bhagalpur Court's jurisdiction affirmed for the cheque dishonour complaint.

Ratio Decidendi: After the amendment to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque dishonour complaint delivered for collection through the payee's account is triable by the Court where the payee's bank branch is situated, and transfer on convenience grounds cannot override that statutory jurisdiction.

---