Cheque dishonour jurisdiction lies with the payee's bank branch; pending complaints may be transferred to the competent court.

Under the amended cheque dishonour jurisdiction scheme, territorial jurisdiction for an account-payee cheque lies with the court where the payee's bank branch maintaining the account is situated, and the special rule overrides the general venue provisions of the CrPC. The Court rejected a forum-shopping interpretation and treated the payee's home branch as the competent forum. It further held that pending Section 138 complaints may be transferred to the competent court under the validating provision, and where evidence under Section 145(2) had already begun, the matter should continue from the appropriate stage rather than restart, in the interests of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's branch bank is situated has jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether a complaint under Section 138 can be transferred to that court when recording of evidence under Section 145(2) has already commenced.

Issue (i): Whether, after the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's branch bank is situated has jurisdiction to try a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The pre-amendment position under Sections 177, 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was reconsidered in the context of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment holds that the amendment introduced Section 142(2), which fixes jurisdiction for account-payee cheques at the branch where the payee maintains the account, read with the Explanation deeming delivery at any branch to be delivery at the home branch. The Court rejects an interpretation that would allow forum shopping by the payee and holds that the special statutory scheme governs territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Yes. The court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's home branch is situated has jurisdiction to try such a complaint.

Issue (ii): Whether a complaint under Section 138 can be transferred to that court when recording of evidence under Section 145(2) has already commenced.

Analysis: Section 142A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 validates transfer of pending cases to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2). At the same time, where proceedings had already reached the stage of evidence, the Court applied the ends-of-justice approach and held that the complaint should be restored and continued in the court to which it had effectively been returned, so that the matter is not re-litigated from the outset.

Conclusion: Yes. The complaint is to be transferred and proceeded with in the competent court from the stage prior to return of the complaint.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional issue under the amended cheque dishonour law is resolved in favour of the payee's home branch for account-payee cheques, and the pending proceedings are to continue before the competent court rather than being invalidated by the earlier jurisdictional shift.

Ratio Decidendi: For a cheque delivered for collection through an account, territorial jurisdiction under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lies with the court within whose local jurisdiction the payee's bank branch where the account is maintained is situated, and the special jurisdictional scheme overrides the general criminal venue rules.

---