Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour complaints upheld where presentation through the payee's branch fixed the forum.

Territorial jurisdiction for a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was upheld because the cheques were presented through the payee's Kilpauk branch and the transfer request had been made before presentation, bringing the case within section 142(2)(a) and its explanation. The objection that the matter was taken up as a summary trial did not vitiate the proceedings, because Magistrates are empowered to try section 138 complaints summarily; at most, any cognizance defect was an irregularity under section 460(e) CrPC and not a nullity under section 461(m). The challenge was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed for want of territorial jurisdiction and whether the alleged defect in taking up the matter as a summary trial vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on cheques presented through the payee's bank branch at Kilpauk, while the drawer contended that the account transfer from Nanganallur to Kilpauk had not become effective on the presentation date. The statutory scheme under section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, including its explanation, was applied to the facts. The Court held that the request for transfer had been made before presentation, the cheques were in fact presented at Kilpauk Branch, and the explanation to section 142 supported treating that branch as the relevant branch for territorial jurisdiction. On the plea based on section 461(m) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court held that Magistrates are empowered to try complaints under section 138 summarily, and therefore clause (m) was inapplicable. At most, any defect in taking cognizance could amount only to an irregularity of the kind covered by section 460(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which would not vitiate the trial.

Conclusion: The challenge to territorial jurisdiction failed, the summary trial objection did not vitiate the proceedings, and the petition was rejected.

---