2017 (6) TMI 354 - HC - Indian Laws

Lower Court jurisdiction to decide the complaint - complainant of a dishonour cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - The place of collecting bank also gives jurisdiction to maintain a complaint. Thereby, the order of the lower Court returning the complaint in not entertaining at the fag end of the trial is since unsustainable it is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed holding that the lower Court got jurisdiction to decide the complaint on merits, with a direction to receive without insisting for any delay in representation if represented within one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and issue fresh summons to the accused so as to proceed further in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the court based on the place where the complainant presented the dishonored cheque.
2. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding jurisdiction.
3. Effect of the amended Act 26 of 2015 on the jurisdiction of the court in cases of dishonored cheques.

Issue 1: The primary issue in this case was the jurisdiction of the court based on the place where the complainant presented the dishonored cheque. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against two accused individuals. The trial court returned the complaint citing lack of jurisdiction as the place where the complainant presented the cheque did not constitute part of the cause of action. The High Court analyzed various judgments, including those of the Supreme Court, to determine the jurisdictional aspect based on the location of presenting the cheque.

Issue 2: The interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding jurisdiction was a crucial aspect of this case. The High Court referred to judgments such as K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Escorts Limited v. Rama Mukherjee to understand the scope of jurisdiction under the Act. The court highlighted that the amended Act of 2015, specifically Section 142 and 142A, clarified the jurisdictional criteria based on where the cheque was delivered for collection or presented for payment.

Issue 3: The effect of the amended Act 26 of 2015 on the jurisdiction of the court in cases of dishonored cheques was another significant point addressed in this judgment. The court emphasized the provisions of the amended Act, which inserted subsections (2) of Section 142 and Section 142(A) to provide clarity on the jurisdictional aspects related to dishonored cheques. The court concluded that the place of the collecting bank also gives jurisdiction to maintain a complaint, thereby setting aside the lower court's order returning the complaint and directing further proceedings in accordance with law.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Case, holding that the lower court had jurisdiction to decide the complaint on merits. The court directed the lower court to receive the complaint without delay if represented within one week and issue fresh summons to the accused for further proceedings. This judgment clarifies the jurisdictional criteria for cases involving dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the importance of the place where the cheque was presented or delivered for collection in determining jurisdiction.