Where to File? Territorial Jurisdiction in a Cheque Bounce Case

Understanding the correct territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case is essential for ensuring your legal complaint is valid. Many individuals often ask, “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case?” or “Where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch?” The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has provided critical clarity on Section 142(2) of NI Act, specifically addressing the conflict between the home branch and the delivery branch. Furthermore, this article explores the complex issue of transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial, ensuring that both the complainant and the accused understand their legal standing in these proceedings.

STAY UPDATED: I will consistently update this article with the latest rulings from the Hon’ble Supreme Court regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. Stay tuned to ensure you remain informed about changes to Section 142(2) of NI Act and other critical legal developments.

Supreme Court Judgment – Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/S HEG Ltd. – 2025 INSC 1362

YOUTUBE VIDEO: I will create a detailed video explaining “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case” to help you visualize these legal concepts. Click on the video link below to watch an audio-visual breakdown of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case.

---

Navigating legal complexities, especially regarding transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial, can be challenging. If you are unsure about where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch, you can schedule a consultation to get clear answers.

---

Schedule an Appointment

---

To help you navigate the complexities of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case, I have organized this article into a clear step-by-step guide. The following table of contents outlines the key sections, including Section 142(2) of NI Act and the rights of both parties.

1. Bibliographic Details of the Judgment on Territorial Jurisdiction in a Cheque Bounce Case

The question of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case is a pivotal issue that determines the validity of the entire legal proceeding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has delivered a significant Judgment that clarifies the interpretation of Section 142(2) of NI Act, specifically addressing the confusion between the place of delivery and the place where the account is maintained. This ruling is essential reading for anyone asking, “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case?”

• Title of the Judgment: Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. M/S HEG Ltd.
• Name of the Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan
• Citation Number: 2025 INSC 1362
• Date of the Judgment: 28th November, 2025

2. Brief Facts and Timelines of the Case

2.1. Brief Facts: The Dispute over “Where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch”

The factual matrix of this case revolves around a dispute regarding the appropriate court for trial, a core element of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. The Appellant (Accused Company), Jai Balaji Industries Ltd., issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 19,94,996/- in favour of the Respondent (Complainant), M/S HEG Ltd., against an invoice dated 23.03.2014.

From the perspective of the Accused, the cheque was drawn on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Kolkata branch. Naturally, the Accused expected that any legal proceedings regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case would likely occur in Kolkata.

From the perspective of the Complainant, they deposited this cheque on 19.06.2014 in their account maintained with the State Bank of India, Bhopal branch. When the cheque was returned unpaid due to insufficiency of funds on 20.06.2025, the Complainant faced the dilemma: “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case?”.

Initially, the Complainant filed the case in Kolkata. However, following the enactment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, which introduced Section 142(2) of NI Act, the Complainant believed jurisdiction shifted to where they maintained their account (Bhopal). Consequently, the complaint was returned by the Kolkata Court and re-filed in Bhopal. The Accused challenged this, leading to the current dispute on territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case.

2.2. Timelines of the Case

To understand the sequence of events and the legal complexities regarding transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial, the following timeline is crucial:

• 23.03.2014: Invoice generated by the Complainant Company.
• 19.06.2014: Cheque deposited by the Complainant in their account at SBI, Bhopal.
• 20.06.2014 (approx): Dishonour of the cheque due to insufficient funds.
• 11.07.2014: Statutory Notice issued by the Complainant demanding payment.
• 14.07.2014: Notice delivered to the Accused.
• 26.07.2014: Accused replied to the notice denying liability.
• 16.08.2014: Complaint Case No. 406978 of 2014 filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Kolkata.
• 29.01.2015: Summons issued to the Accused persons.
• 27.04.2015: Affidavit of evidence-in-chief of the Complainant taken on record by MM, Kolkata.
• 26.12.2015: Enactment of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015.
• 28.07.2016: MM, Kolkata returned the complaint to the Complainant to present it before the proper court.
• 2017: Complaint re-registered as Case No. RCT 1501046 of 2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Bhopal.

3. The Procedural History: From Kolkata to Bhopal

3.1. Initial Proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata

The legal battle began in West Bengal. After the Dishonour of the cheque, the Complainant filed the complaint before the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Kolkata. The Hon’ble Court took cognizance and issued summons. The Accused persons appeared, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. Crucially, the trial progressed significantly; on 27.04.2015, the Complainant filed the affidavit of evidence-in-chief. This meant the trial had effectively commenced, a vital fact for determining territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case.

3.2. Transfer to JMFC, Bhopal and the Accused’s Objection

While the case was pending, the law changed. The Amendment Act, 2015 came into force, stipulating that territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case for account payee cheques lies where the payee maintains their account. Relying on this, the MM, Kolkata returned the complaint. The Complainant then filed the case before the Hon’ble JMFC, Bhopal.

The Accused raised a strong objection regarding transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial. They argued that since evidence recording had already started in Kolkata (Section 145(2) stage), the Kolkata Court should not have returned the complaint. The Hon’ble JMFC, Bhopal rejected these objections. The Accused then challenged this rejection before the Sessions Court, Bhopal, and ultimately, the matter reached the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Navigating legal complexities, especially regarding transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial, can be challenging. If you are unsure about where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch, you can schedule a consultation to get clear answers.

Schedule an appointment with the advocate to understand the visitor’s query

4. Issues and Contentions Before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

4.1. The Core Question of Territorial Jurisdiction in a Cheque Bounce Case

The primary issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was twofold. First, the Court had to settle the correct interpretation of Section 142(2) of NI Act regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. Second, it had to decide if a case could be transferred to a new jurisdiction if the trial had already advanced to the stage of recording evidence.

4.2. Complainant’s Stance on Section 142(2) of NI Act

The Complainant relied on the text of the Amendment Act, 2015. They argued that under the amended law, territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case is specific to the place where the payee maintains the bank account. Since the Complainant maintained their account in Bhopal, they contended that the Bhopal Court was the only competent court to try the offence, justifying the return of the complaint from Kolkata.

4.3. Accused’s Stance on transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial

The Accused contended that the territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case should not shift once the trial has reached an advanced stage. They relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, which held that cases where the recording of evidence under Section 145(2) had commenced should continue in the same court where the trial was ongoing, even if that court technically lost jurisdiction under new rules. They argued that transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial causes harassment and procedural impropriety.

5. Supreme Court’s Analysis on Section 142(2) of NI Act

5.1. Clarifying “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case”: “Maintains an Account” vs. “Delivered for Collection”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court provided a deep analysis of Section 142(2) of NI Act to settle the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. The Court distinguished between two scenarios:

• Account Payee Cheques (Section 142(2)(a)): Jurisdiction lies where the branch of the bank in which the payee maintains the account is situated.
• Bearer Cheques (Section 142(2)(b)): Jurisdiction lies where the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account is situated.

The Court clarified that the expressions “delivered for collection” and “presented for payment” are distinct and operate in separate stages of discharging liability. The Court observed that “delivery” creates a relationship between the drawer and the payee, while “presentment” creates a relationship between the bank and the payee.

Crucially, regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case, the Court held that the phrase “the branch of the bank where the payee… maintains the account” places an additional condition on the relationship between a person and his banker. For a Complainant asking “As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case?”, the Court clarified that maintaining an account creates a specific relationship with a “Home Branch”. The mere act of delivering a cheque for collection at any branch does not automatically confer jurisdiction on that delivery branch.

5.2. The Legal Fiction: Understanding the “Explanation” Clause

The Court explained that the “Explanation” to Section 142(2) of NI Act creates a “legal fiction”. This is critical for understanding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. The Explanation stipulates that if a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the payee’s bank, it shall be “deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee… maintains the account”.

“The deeming fiction in the Explanation ensures that even if a cheque is delivered to a branch other than the home branch for commercial convenience, it shall be considered to have been delivered to the home branch for the legal purpose of determining jurisdiction.”

This squarely answers the query: “Where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch?” The answer is the Home Branch, not the delivery branch. The Court noted that an interpretation otherwise would allow a payee to manipulate territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case by simply choosing where to deposit the cheque, leading to forum shopping.

5.3. Correcting the Law: Overruling the Yogesh Upadhyay Interpretation

The Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that a previous decision in Yogesh Upadhyay v. Atlanta Ltd. had incorrectly interpreted Section 142(2) of NI Act by giving primacy to the place of “delivery” rather than the “Home Branch”. The Court declared the position of law in Yogesh Upadhyay as per incuriam (decided without reference to the correct statutory context).

The Court stated: “If we accept the construction placed on Section 142(2)(a) by the decision in Yogesh Upadhyay (supra), we will be allowing a payee to manipulate the question of jurisdiction in his favour by letting him decide where he wants to deliver the cheque for collection.”

Thus, the decisive factor for territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case is the location of the branch where the payee maintains the account, regardless of where the cheque was physically handed over.

6. Supreme Court’s Ruling on Transfer of Pending Cases

6.1. The General Rule for Transfer under Section 142A

The Court acknowledged that Section 142A generally provides for the transfer of pending cases to the court having territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case under the new scheme (the Home Branch). Generally, territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case would shift to the JMFC, Bhopal, as that is where the complainant maintained their account.

6.2. The Critical Exception: When Evidence Recording Has Commenced

However, regarding transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial, the Hon’ble Supreme Court carved out a critical exception. The Court referred to the judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, which held that cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) (recording of evidence) should remain with the original court.

In the present case, the recording of evidence had already commenced before the MM, Kolkata. The Court held that forcing the parties to restart the trial in Bhopal would cause procedural impropriety and be detrimental to the accused.

The Hon’ble Court held: “In such view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that allowing the parties to contest the complaint afresh before the JMFC, Bhopal would amount to a procedural impropriety that may prove to be detrimental to the case of the accused.”

Therefore, while the “Home Branch” rule usually dictates territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case, it does not apply if transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial would restart a trial that has already reached the evidence stage.

7. Operative Portion and Conclusion

7.1. Final Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the transfer petition filed by the Accused. The Court directed that the case be transferred back to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata, and the proceedings be resumed from the stage before the order of return of the complaint dated 28.07.2016. This reaffirms that established trials should not be disrupted by changes in rules regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case.

7.2. Conclusion: Insights for the Appellant (Accused) and Respondent (Complainant)

• For the Appellant (Accused): This Judgment is a relief regarding territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case. It establishes that transferring a cheque bounce case to another court after the start of trial (specifically after evidence has begun) is not permitted. You are protected from the harassment of facing a de novo trial in a new city just because the jurisdiction rules changed mid-trial.
• For the Respondent (Complainant): This ruling clarifies Section 142(2) of NI Act. While you generally must file at your “Home Branch” to establish territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case, if your case is old and evidence recording had already started in the previous court before the 2015 amendment, the case must finish there. This clarity helps you avoid wasting time in courts that ultimately cannot try the matter due to procedural history.

8. Frequently Asked Questions on Territorial Jurisdiction in Cheque Bounce Cases

Q: As a complainant, where should I file my cheque bounce case if I hold an account payee cheque? A: You should file the complaint in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where you maintain your account (Home Branch) is situated. This is specified under Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act.Q: Where should I file a cheque bounce case if I deposited the cheque at a branch different from my home branch? A: Even if you deposited the cheque at a different branch for collection, the jurisdiction lies with the court covering your Home Branch (where you maintain the account). The law deems the cheque to have been delivered to your Home Branch.Q: Can a cheque bounce case be transferred to another court after the start of trial? A: Generally, no. If the recording of evidence under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has already commenced, the case should not be transferred. It must continue in the original court to avoid procedural impropriety.Q: What does “maintains an account” mean in the context of Section 142(2) of the NI Act? A: It refers to the specific relationship between an account holder and the specific “Home Branch” where the account is held. This relationship determines jurisdiction, not just any branch of the same bank.Q: Does the physical delivery of an account payee cheque determine territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case? A: No. The physical delivery at a collection branch is a commercial convenience. For legal jurisdiction, the decisive factor is the location of the branch where the payee maintains the account.Q: What is the rule for territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case involving a bearer cheque? A: For a bearer cheque (presented otherwise than through an account), jurisdiction lies with the court where the branch of the drawee bank (the drawer’s bank) is situated.Q: Why was the transfer of the case from Kolkata to Bhopal rejected by the Supreme Court? A: The transfer was rejected because the trial in Kolkata had already reached the stage of recording evidence (Section 145(2)). Transferring it to Bhopal would have forced a restart of the trial, causing detriment to the accused.Q: Did the Supreme Court agree with the interpretation in the Yogesh Upadhyay case? A: No. The Supreme Court declared the interpretation in Yogesh Upadhyay as per incuriam because it incorrectly prioritized the place of “delivery” over the “Home Branch” where the account is maintained.Q: What is the purpose of the “Explanation” to Section 142(2)(a)? A: The Explanation creates a “legal fiction” that a cheque delivered at any branch is deemed to be delivered at the Home Branch. This prevents complainants from choosing jurisdiction by simply depositing a cheque in a different city.Q: Can I file a case where the cheque was dishonoured? A: For account payee cheques, jurisdiction is not determined by where the cheque was dishonoured, but by where the payee maintains their account.Q: What happens if a case is pending but evidence recording has NOT started? A: If the recording of evidence has not started, Section 142A allows the case to be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under the new rules (i.e., the Home Branch).Q: Is the convenience of the Complainant or the Accused prioritized in criminal trials? A: In criminal prosecution, the convenience of the complainant has little role to play compared to civil actions. However, the 2015 Amendment aimed to balance interests, but the Court ensures this does not lead to forum shopping.Q: What should an Accused do if a case is transferred after evidence has started? A: The Accused can object to the transfer citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case, arguing that the proceedings should remain with the original court to prevent harassment and a de novo trial.Q: What is the “Home Branch”? A: The “Home Branch” is the specific branch of the bank where the payee (or drawer, for bearer cheques) maintains their account. It is the anchor for determining territorial jurisdiction.Q: Does Section 142(2) apply to all cheque bounce cases? A: Yes, Section 142(2) was introduced to clarify jurisdiction for all cases under Section 138, distinguishing between cheques delivered for collection (account payee) and those presented otherwise (bearer).

Disclaimer: In compliance with the Bar Council of India guidelines, this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation for legal services.