Cheque dishonour jurisdiction extends to the payee's bank place of presentation; disputed notice service need not block cognizance.

After the 2015 amendment to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour complaints extends to the court where the cheque is presented for collection through the payee's bank account, not only the place of dishonour. On that basis, the Srinagar Magistrate had jurisdiction because the cheques were presented through the complainant's bank there. Alleged non-service of the statutory demand notice was treated as a matter for trial, and not a ground to defeat cognizance or issuance of process at the threshold. The challenge to the complaint and proceedings therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate at Srinagar had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of the amended Section 142(2); (ii) Whether the alleged non-service of the statutory notice of demand vitiated the complaint at the stage of cognizance and issuance of process.

Issue (i): Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases is governed by Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as inserted by the amendment of 2015, which recognises jurisdiction not only where the drawee bank is situated but also where the cheque is presented for collection through the payee's bank account. The earlier position limiting jurisdiction to the place of dishonour, as stated in the pre-amendment law, stood modified.

Conclusion: The Magistrate at Srinagar had jurisdiction, since the cheques were presented through the complainant's bank at Srinagar and dishonoured there.

Issue (ii): The complaint specifically pleaded dispatch and service of the statutory notice, and the question whether the notice was actually served, and on what date, was held to be a matter for trial. At the stage of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Magistrate was not required to enter into a detailed factual inquiry on service of notice.

Conclusion: The objection based on alleged non-service of notice was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the complaint and the consequential proceedings failed on both jurisdiction and notice-related grounds, and the petition was dismissed at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: After the 2015 amendment to Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases extends to the court where the cheque is presented for collection through the payee's bank account, and disputed service of statutory notice need not be conclusively determined at the stage of cognizance.

---