Returned cheque complaint must be re-filed within the directed time; later amendment could not revive a non-pending case.

A returned Section 138 complaint had to be re-filed within the period directed after lack of territorial jurisdiction was found; filing it later did not cure the defect, and physical collection of the returned papers or awaiting connected proceedings did not extend time. Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inserted by the 2015 amendment, also did not help because it applies to complaints pending on the relevant commencement date, whereas this complaint had already been returned and was not pending in either court. The dismissal on limitation and maintainability grounds was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, could be validly re-filed after the period indicated by the Magistrate and the directions in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod; (ii) Whether the benefit of Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as inserted by the 2015 amendment, could be invoked to save the complaint despite its return and re-filing outside the stipulated period.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, could be validly re-filed after the period indicated by the Magistrate and the directions in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod.

Analysis: The complaint had originally been filed before a court lacking territorial jurisdiction. The governing rule was that, for an offence under Section 138, the court exercising jurisdiction is the one within whose local limits the drawee bank is situated, in terms of Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as applied by the Supreme Court. The matter had not reached the stage where it would be treated as transferred under the transitional directions, and once the complaint was returned, it was required to be re-filed within the stipulated period. Physical collection of the returned complaint did not extend that period, and awaiting further orders in the connected proceedings did not justify the delay.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable when re-filed after the prescribed period, and the dismissal on limitation and maintainability grounds was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as inserted by the 2015 amendment, could be invoked to save the complaint despite its return and re-filing outside the stipulated period.

Analysis: Section 142A operated to transfer pending complaints to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2), and to govern complaints that were pending on the date of commencement of the amendment. The complaint in question was neither pending in the original court nor pending before the transferee court on the relevant date, having already been returned. The amendment therefore did not assist the appellant, and the complaint could not be revived by treating it as a pending matter under the new regime.

Conclusion: The amended transfer provision did not apply, and the appellant could not derive any benefit from Section 142A.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity, and the challenge to dismissal of the complaint failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A returned complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must be re-filed within the time directed pursuant to the jurisdictional ruling applicable at the time, and a subsequently inserted transfer provision does not revive a complaint that was not pending on the relevant commencement date.

---