Territorial jurisdiction for cheque dishonour complaints extends to the payee's bank branch in India, despite a foreign cheque.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held maintainable in Delhi where a foreign cheque was presented for collection through the payee's bank branch in India, because Section 142(2) confers territorial jurisdiction on the court within whose local limits the collecting bank is situated. The Court held that the foreign character of the cheque did not exclude Indian criminal jurisdiction under Section 138, and the absence of any term requiring payment only abroad did not defeat venue. A Section 482 CrPC petition was also refused because it was filed after unexplained delay and laches, which by itself justified declining inherent interference. The prosecution was left to proceed before the Delhi court.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on a foreign cheque presented for collection in Delhi was maintainable before the Delhi court and (ii) whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserved rejection on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 based on a foreign cheque presented for collection in Delhi was maintainable before the Delhi court.

Analysis: The cheque was treated as a foreign instrument because it was drawn and payable outside India and in foreign currency. The Court considered the statutory scheme of Sections 11, 12, 134, 135, 137, 138 and 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, together with Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It held that Chapter XVI provisions concerning foreign instruments govern civil liability, but they do not exclude the operation of Section 138 when the cheque is presented in India. The amended territorial-jurisdiction rule in Section 142(2) makes the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's bank branch is situated competent where the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. The Court also held that absence of a specific stipulation making the cheque payable only abroad did not defeat jurisdiction, and that the payee's presentation of the cheque in Delhi was sufficient to attract Indian criminal jurisdiction under Section 138.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable before the Delhi court, and the objection to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deserved rejection on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Analysis: The petition was filed several years after the complaint had been pending and at a belated stage of trial. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay and held that such unexplained laches was itself sufficient to decline exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the complaint. The merits were nevertheless examined, but the delay remained an independent ground against interference.

Conclusion: The petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of unexplained delay and laches.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to quash the complaint and left the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to proceed before the Delhi court.

Ratio Decidendi: For a foreign cheque presented for collection through the payee's bank in India, territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 is attracted by Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and unexplained delay in invoking Section 482 CrPC can by itself justify refusal to interfere.

---