https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313608 Complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were held not maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai because the cheques, underlying transaction, drawer, drawee bank and dishonour were all linked to the United States. Territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 offence had to be determined by where the offence was committed, and jurisdiction could not be created in India merely by presenting the cheques through a Chennai bank branch or issuing notice from Chennai. The Court also held that provisions relating to foreign negotiable instruments governed civil liability and did not confer criminal jurisdiction on these facts. The proceedings were quashed as forum shopping and abuse of process. en-us Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Apr 2024 11:05:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313608 Complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were held not maintainable before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Chennai because the cheques, underlying transaction, drawer, drawee bank and dishonour were all linked to the United States. Territorial jurisdiction for a Section 138 offence had to be determined by where the offence was committed, and jurisdiction could not be created in India merely by presenting the cheques through a Chennai bank branch or issuing notice from Chennai. The Court also held that provisions relating to foreign negotiable instruments governed civil liability and did not confer criminal jurisdiction on these facts. The proceedings were quashed as forum shopping and abuse of process. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313608