2025:CGHC:18709 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1384 of 2025 Smt. Krishna Bai W/o Shri Desh Kumar Barle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Umariya, Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Tahsil Arang, Distt Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus Bharosaram Verma S/o Shri Parmanand Verma Aged About 41 Years R/o Jelpara, Bemcha Ward No. 15, Police Station, Tahsil And District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 24.04.2025 1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS 2023) against the order dated 04.03.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, CG in Case file-22146 of 2025, whereby the Complaint case filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) has been returned back for filing of the same within the competent jurisdictional Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is the complainant in the Complaint case filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The respondent had issued a cheque bearing No.19138 dated 11.01.2023 from his Bank account running at IDBI Bank, Branch Mahasamund for discharge of his Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.05.16 13:43:10 +0530 crmp1384 of 2025 2 liability. Petitioner is the resident of village-Umari, Tahsil-Arang, District- Raipur. When the petitioner deposited the said cheque in her Bank account, situated at the Jila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Branch-Tumgaon, District-Mahasamund, it was dishonored on 21.01.2023 on the ground of insufficiency of fund. The legal demand notice was issued to the respondent, and thereafter, a Complaint case was filed by the petitioner on 24.03.2023 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Mahasamund for commission of offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The learned CJM had returned the Complaint case on 11.04.2023 to the petitioner for filing it before the competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Himalaya Self Farming Group Vs Goyal Feed Suppliers, Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.273 of 2020, and also provisions contained in Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act on 11.04.2023. The learned Court has observed in its order dated 11.04.2023 that after dishonor of the cheque the same was returned back to the District Cooperative Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Raipur, Tumgaon Branch, from where she received back the same, and therefore, the Court within whose jurisdiction the Branch of the Bank, where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account. 3. Considering the order passed by the learned CJM Mahasamund, the petitioner took her complaint back for filing in the Court having crmp1384 of 2025 3 competent jurisdiction at Raipur. The petitioner had filed her complaint before the learned JMFC Raipur on 24.04.2023. The case was registered before the Court of learned JMFC Raipur on the same day as Criminal case-22146 of 2025, and process was issued upon the respondent/accused for his appearance on 18.11.2024. 4. On the said date, respondent/accused made his appearance, and was released on bail. Thereafter, the case was fixed for argument on its registration, and for compromise. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for argument, of its registration, and ultimately on 01.03.2025, arguments were heard on its registration, and on 04.03.2025, order has been passed by the learned JMFC Raipur, holding that the complainant is maintaining her Bank account at IDBI Bank Tumgaon Branch, Mahasamund, and in view of Section 142(2)(b) of the NI Act, the Court within whose local jurisdiction the drawer maintains the account is situated, complaint is to be filed there only, and has returned the complaint to the complainant for filing it before the Court having competent jurisdiction. 5. Since the complaint case filed by the complainant/petitioner was returned back by both the courts ie Mahasamund, as well as Raipur, she filed the present petition for a direction about the jurisdiction of Courts to file her complaint, and to proceed with the case. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is bona fidely prosecuting her complaint but for want of jurisdiction, her crmp1384 of 2025 4 complaint case was returned back from both the Courts. Although from language of section 142 of the NI Act, it appears that both the Courts where the Drawer maintains his/her bank account, and where the drawee Bank is situated, have jurisdiction to try the offence. But Both the Courts have returned back the complaint of the petitioner for filing it before the jurisdictional court. The orders passed by the learned JMFC Raipur is perverse in view of Section 142(2) of the NI Act, and therefore, order dated 04.03.2025 may be set aside, and directed the JMFC Raipur to register the complaint case of the petitioner and try the offence. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the material annexed with the petition. 8. The core issue involved in the petition is the jurisdiction to file the complaint when a cheque is dishonored by the payee bank on any of the ground under the NI Act. 9. Cognizance of the offence is provided in Section 142 of the NI Act, and it is necessary to quote here the provisions of Section 142 of the NI Act: Section 142(2) in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881— (2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,— (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or crmp1384 of 2025 5 (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation.— For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account. 10. Section 142 of the NI Act specifically provides the jurisdiction, where the complaint case is to be filed, and Section 142(2) (a) and (b) provides that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act shall be enquired into, and tried by the Court within whose local jurisdiction the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the Branch of the payee Bank, or holder in due course maintains the account is situated, or the Branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintaains the account is situated. 11. In the present case, the petitioner deposited the cheque at Raipur in her account which was sent to the bank account situated at the branch Mahasamund for its clearance, where, the drawer maintains his account, and thus, in view of the provisions of Section 142 (2)(a) and (b) of the NI Act, the Raipur code is also having jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act as the cheque was deposited by the drawee in her account, where the payee is maintaining her Bank account. 12. In the matter of Bridgestone India Private Limited Vs Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held thus: crmp1384 of 2025 6 “9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (2014) 9 SCC 129, and pointedly invited our attention to the conclusions drawn by this Court in paragraph 58, which is extracted hereunder: “58. To sum up: 58.1 An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. 58.2 Cognizance of any such offence is however forbidden under Section 142 of the Act except upon a complaint in writing made by the payee or holder of the cheque in due course within a period of one month from the date the cause of action accrues to such payee or holder under clause (c) of proviso to Section 138. 58.3 The cause of action to file a complaint accrues to a complainant/payee/holder of a cheque in due course if (a) the dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank within a period of six months from the date of its issue. (b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the dishonour of the cheque, and (c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within fifteen days of receipt of such notice. crmp1384 of 2025 7 58.4 The facts constituting cause of action do not constitute the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. 58.5 The proviso to Section 138 simply postpones/defers institution of criminal proceedings and taking of cognizance by the court till such time cause of action in terms of clause (c) of proviso accrues to the complainant. 58.6 Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference to the place where the cheque is dishonoured. 58.7 The general rule stipulated under Section 177 CrPC applies to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Prosecution in such cases can, therefore, be launched against the drawer of the cheque only before the court within whose jurisdiction the dishonour takes place except in situations where the offence of dishonour of the cheque punishable under Section 138 is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of Section 220(1) read with Section 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184 and 220 thereof.” 10. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case, it is apparent, that the impugned order dated 05.05.2011, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, was wholly justified. 11. In order to overcome the legal position declared by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `the Ordinance'). A perusal of crmp1384 of 2025 8 Section 1(2) thereof reveals, that the Ordinance would be deemed to have come into force with effect from 15.06.2015. It is therefore pointed out to us, that the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 is in force. Our attention was then invited to Section 3 thereof, whereby, the original Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be amended, and also, Section 4 thereof, whereby, Section 142A was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act. 12. Sections 3 and 4 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 are being extracted hereunder: “3. Amendment of Section 142— In the principal Act, section 142 shall be numbered as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as so numbered, the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely— 142(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,— (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or (b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated. Explanation – For the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.” 4. Insertion of new section—In the principal Act, after section 142, the following section shall be inserted, namely— crmp1384 of 2025 9 142-A. Validation for transfer of pending cases— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Ordinance, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub- section (1), and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. (3) If, on the date of the commencement of this Ordinance, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.” (Emphasis is ours) 13. A perusal of the amended Section 142(2), extracted above, leaves no room for any doubt, specially in view of the explanation thereunder, that with reference to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable crmp1384 of 2025 10 Instruments Act, 1881, the place where a cheque is delivered for collection i.e. the branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, where the drawee maintains an account, would be determinative of the place of territorial jurisdiction. 14. It is, however, imperative for the present controversy, that the appellant overcomes the legal position declared by this Court, as well as, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, a reference may be made to Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, whereby Section 142A was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of Sub-section (1) thereof leaves no room for any doubt, that insofar as the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned, on the issue of jurisdiction, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would have to give way to the provisions of the instant enactment on account of the non-obstinate clause in sub-section (1) of Section 142A. Likewise, any judgment, decree, order or direction issued by a Court would have no effect insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case would also not non-suit the appellant for the relief claimed. 15. We are in complete agreement with the contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We are satisfied, that Section 142(2)(a), amended through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015, vests jurisdiction for initiating proceedings for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, inter alia in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, where the cheque is delivered for collection (through an account of the branch of crmp1384 of 2025 11 the bank where the payee or holder in due course maintains an account). We are also satisfied, based on Section 142A(1) to the effect, that the judgment rendered by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case, would not stand in the way of the appellant, insofar as the territorial jurisdiction for initiating proceedings emerging from the dishonor of the cheque in the present case arises.” 13. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Bridgestone India (supra), it appears that return of the complaint filed by the petitioner from the Court of learned JMFC Raipur is erroneous, and the said Court is having jurisdiction to try the offence of Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, and it cannot return the complaint to the petitioner for filing it before the competent jurisdictional Court. 14. Thus, this Court holds that learned JMFC Raipur is having jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act in the present case with respect to the dishonor of the cheque in the present case, and learned JMFC Raipur is directed to register the case, and to proceed in accordance with law. 15. With this observation, petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma