Clarification on Jurisdiction for Dishonored Cheques under Negotiable Instruments Act

The court clarified that the Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi had jurisdiction over criminal complaints regarding dishonored cheques, emphasizing the location of the drawee bank. The impact of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 was discussed, with subsequent changes in Section 142 and the addition of Section 142A addressing jurisdictional aspects. The interpretation validated transferring cases to courts with jurisdiction under the amended Section 142. The judgment allowed the petitions, setting aside transfer orders and reviving cases before the Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court in cases of dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Impact of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on the jurisdiction of courts.
3. Interpretation of Section 142 and Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the issue of territorial jurisdiction concerning the dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner company had filed criminal complaints seeking prosecution of the respondents for dishonoring cheques issued to the petitioner. Initially, the complaints were accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi. However, the complaints were later returned citing lack of territorial jurisdiction based on the location of the drawee bank in Jaipur. This decision was influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 129, which emphasized jurisdiction based on the location of the drawee bank.

2. The judgment discussed the impact of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on the court's jurisdiction. The petitioner sought a recall of the order returning the complaints based on the promulgation of the ordinance. However, as the ordinance lapsed and was re-promulgated, fresh applications were made by the petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially declined to entertain the complaints again, citing lack of power to review or recall the transfer order. The subsequent enactment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 introduced changes to Section 142 and added Section 142A, clarifying the jurisdictional aspects of cases under Section 138.

3. The judgment extensively interpreted Section 142 and Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 142(2) specified the jurisdiction of courts based on the location of the bank where the payee or holder maintains the account or where the drawer maintains the account. Section 142A validated the transfer of pending cases to courts with jurisdiction under the amended Section 142. It clarified that cases against the same drawer should be filed before the same court, irrespective of the location of delivery or presentation of the cheques. The court concluded that the jurisdictional court for the criminal complaint cases was the Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi due to the location of the bank branch where the cheques were presented for collection. The judgment allowed the petitions, setting aside the orders transferring or declining to entertain the complaints and reviving the cases before the Metropolitan Magistrate in New Delhi for further proceedings.

---