Dishonour of “AT PAR” Cheques,which court has jurisdiction to try case? Leading Bombay high court judgment

Giving huge relief to the Creditors, Bombay High Court held that Dis-honour of “AT PAR” Cheque cases can be filed to the Court within whose local jurisdiction the nearest available branch of bank of the drawer situated.

Dishonour of “AT PAR” Cheque; Complaint can be filed in the Court within whose local jurisdiction the nearest available branch of Drawer’s bank situated. SC Judgment in Dashrath v. State is not applicable to “AT PAR” Cheques 

It is thus clear that in the present case by issuing cheques payable at all branches, the drawer of the cheques had given an option to the banker of payee to get the cheques cleared from the nearest available branch of bank of the drawer. It, therefore, follows that the cheques have been dishonoured within the territorial jurisdiction of Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla. In view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Kurla Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in question”.

Mr.Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Anr.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2362 OF 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE

CORAM : M.L.TAHALIYANI J.
DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2014


The petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable u/s. 138 of
N.I.Act vide Summary Criminal Case No. 3684 of 2013 in the Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court at Kurla.
The complaint was
originally filed in 61th Court at Kurla and now it has been transferred to
59th Court at Kurla by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.
The
petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate issuing process against the petitioner to answer the charge for
the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He wants
that the complaint be returned to the respondent No. 2 (original
complainant) for being presented before the Court having territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

The two cheques in question were admittedly issued by the
04.
petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2. The first cheque of Rs.
Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
9,90,000/- was drawn on State Bank of India, Gandhinagar Branch,
The other cheque was drawn on Bank of
Maharashtra, Gandhinagar Branch, Ahmadabad, Gujarat.
Both the
cheques were payable at par at all branches of the respective banks. The
issue raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, during
the course of argument, is that both the cheques were dishonoured at
Ahmadabad and that, therefore, in view of the judgment of the

Honourable Supreme Court in the matter of Dashrath v. State of
Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009), Mumbai Court will
have no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint.
05.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has submitted that
since both the cheques were payable at all branches of respective banks
and since both the cheques were dishoured by the Mumbai branches of
State Bank of India and Bank of Maharashtra situated within the
jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, the respondent No.2 was
right in filing the complaint in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate at
Kurla.
06.
The issue which needs determination is as to whether which Court
will have territorial jurisdiction to try the offence punishable u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, when the cheque payable at all branches of
the drawee bank has been dishonoured by one of the branches of the
drawee bank. In the present case, the drawer had accounts at Gandhi

Nagar branches of the two banks mentioned herein above and cheques
have been dishonoured by the branches of the said two banks situated
within the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla. The question
which arises for determination is as to whether the payee has to file
complaint in the Court of Magistrate having jurisdiction over Gandhi
Nagar branches or the branches which have dishonoured cheques. In
this regard, one may refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra cited (supra). While
31 as under:
“31. To sum up:

summing up the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said at para
..........
(ii) ..........
(iii) ..........
(iv) ..........
(v) ..........
(vi) Once the cause of action accrues to the complainant, the
(i) 
jurisdiction of the Court to try the case will be determined by reference
to the place where the cheque is dishonoured.
(vii) The general rule stipulated under Section 177 of Cr.P.C.
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
and 220 thereof.”
7.
or is covered by the provisions of Section 182(1) read with Sections 184
One may also refer to para 17 of the said judgment where the
Hon'ble supreme Court has said as under:
“17. ..... In our discernment, it is also now manifest that traders
and businessmen have become reckless and incautious in extending

credit where they would heretofore have been extremely hesitant, solely
because of the availability of redress by way of criminal proceedings. It
is always open to the creditor to insist that the cheques in question be
made payable at a place of the creditor's convenience (emphasis
supplied)”.
8.
It is thus clear that in the present case by issuing cheques
payable at all branches, the drawer of the cheques had given an option to
the banker of payee to get the cheques cleared from the nearest available
branch of bank of the drawer. It, therefore, follows that the cheques
have been dishonoured within the territorial jurisdiction of Court of
Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla.
In view of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Dashrath v. State of Maharashtra cited
(supra), the learned Metropolitan Magistrate of Kurla Court has
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in question.
9.
I do not find any substance in the petition. The petition stands

Prayer for stay of this Order for two weeks is rejected.
10.
dismissed.

Print Page