Territorial jurisdiction in cheque-dishonour cases follows the payee's account, and disputed compromise pleas cannot justify quashing.

Territorial jurisdiction in a cheque-dishonour complaint lies with the court where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account under the amended Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and Section 142-A validates transfer of pending proceedings to that forum. On that basis, the objection to the complaint before JMIC Baramulla was held to have no remaining force. A plea based on an alleged compromise, being a disputed question of fact, was not suitable for determination in inherent jurisdiction, and the request to transfer the matter to Srinagar was unsupported. The complaint was directed to proceed before the court having territorial jurisdiction at Sopore.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 retained any territorial-jurisdiction objection after the amendment to Section 142 and insertion of Section 142-A; (ii) Whether the alleged compromise and the request to transfer the case to Srinagar warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 retained any territorial-jurisdiction objection after the amendment to Section 142 and insertion of Section 142-A.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on a cheque delivered for collection through the payee's account at J&K Bank Agro High-tech, Sopore. By the amended scheme of Section 142(2), jurisdiction in such matters lies with the court where the payee or holder in due course maintains the account. Section 142-A further validated and transferred pending proceedings to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2), treating that provision as operative at all material times. On that basis, the objection to the complaint being before JMIC Baramulla no longer survived.

Conclusion: The territorial-jurisdiction challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged compromise and the request to transfer the case to Srinagar warranted interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The plea based on a concealed compromise raised a disputed question of fact that could not be adjudicated in proceedings under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The request for transfer to Srinagar was also unsupported by any material showing inability to appear before the competent court. The appropriate course was therefore to transmit the complaint to the court vested with territorial jurisdiction, namely the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sopore.

Conclusion: The prayer for quashing on the compromise plea and the request for transfer to Srinagar were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was directed to be placed before the court having territorial jurisdiction at Sopore, while the challenge to the proceedings themselves was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In cheque-dishonour cases, territorial jurisdiction is governed by the amended Section 142(2) and pending complaints stand transferred by operation of Section 142-A to the court where the payee's account is maintained; disputed factual pleas do not justify quashing in inherent jurisdiction.

---