138 ni act jurisdiction

amit (Querist) 15 April 2015 This query is : Resolved
X, a resident & works for gain, having office at Agra, moves a complaint U/S 138 NI Act against Y (living at Delhi & Office at Pitampura, Delhi.), who issued and send a Cheque vide Speed Post to X at his Agra Office. When X presented Y’s Cheque for encashment to his Banker at Agra, his Cheque got bounced. (All the formalities like sending demand notice, filing of complaint and issuing notice has been done according to limitations and well on time). Thereafter, two summons have also been issued to Y but he did not appeared at Agra Court. Further, Bailable Warrant has also been issued, but Y still not appeared.
In the meantime, on hearing, the Magistrate refuse to hear the complaint on pretext that some new ruling/citation ‘Dashrath Rup Singh Rathore … Vs … State of Maharashtra & Anr.’ has been delivered by Supreme Court, according to which jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce matter lies at Delhi since Y resides at Delhi. So, Magistrate is passing order to transfer the same to Delhi Court. As per the said latest Citation of Supreme Court.

Q1. – Where the Jurisdiction shall lie according to new Supreme Court case law.

Q2. – Does this new citation of SC of 138 NI Act, applicable to the above said situation, where Bailable warrant has already been issued to the accused? (and Y still not appeared on date)

Q3. – Where the Jurisdiction shall lie? According to latest Law/Ruling of Supreme Court. Whether it lies in Agra or in Delhi?

Q4. – What is the time period, if Magistrate is willing to order the Complainant to transfer the Complaint to Delhi Court for account of Jurisdiction?

Q5.- Can Magistrate transfer the said case in between, if Bailable Warrant has already been issued to accused?

Q6. – Does the new ruling ‘Dashrath Rup Singh Rathore … Vs … State of Maharashtra & Anr.’of SC says that if Bailable Warrant has already been issued then also the complaint is liable be transferred to Delhi Court?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Devajyoti Barman (Expert) 15 April 2015
Regular professional/academic query.

Nadeem Qureshi (Expert) 15 April 2015
Dear Amit
My opinion on your queries are as under:

Q1. – Where the Jurisdiction shall lie according to new Supreme Court case law.
Opinion: Where the branch is situated in which the cheque was issued/the accused has the account.

Q2. – Does this new citation of SC of 138 NI Act, applicable to the above said situation, where Bailable warrant has already been issued to the accused? (and Y still not appeared on date)
Opinion: Yes, this judgment will be applicable.

Q3. – Where the Jurisdiction shall lie? According to latest Law/Ruling of Supreme Court. Whether it lies in Agra or in Delhi?
Opinion: Delhi, if the branch of the bank is in delhi from which the cheque was issue.

Q4. – What is the time period, if Magistrate is willing to order the Complainant to transfer the Complaint to Delhi Court for account of Jurisdiction?
Opinion: 30 days from getting the certified copies of the complaint and other documents.

Q5.- Can Magistrate transfer the said case in between, if Bailable Warrant has already been issued to accused?
Opinion: Yes

Q6. – Does the new ruling ‘Dashrath Rup Singh Rathore … Vs … State of Maharashtra & Anr.’of SC says that if Bailable Warrant has already been issued then also the complaint is liable be transferred to Delhi Court?
Opinion: yes, only if the matter is pending before the magistrate at the stage of the evidence/cross examination then only the case can not be transferred other wise the matter can be transferred.

DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g (Expert) 15 April 2015
Even if it may be professional query this problem of transfer is being faced at all courts even at High court level.

2) At Delhi HC in March 15 one bench allowed transfer and on next day the transfer was denied for similar cases by another bench.

THE DASHRATH CASE OF SC IS CLEAR AND SPECIFIC THAT IF THE EVIDENCE HAS NOT STARTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 145- 2 THE CASE SHOULD BE HANDED OVER BACK TO THE COMPLAINANT FOR FILING AT PROPER COURT.