Full Judgment Text
Non-reportable
2025 INSC 897
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. OF 2025
(@ S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024)
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth … Appellant
Versus
Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue in these appeals is as to where the appellant
was required to file his complaints in relation to offences punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity,
‘N.I. Act’).
3. The appellant’s case was that Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat
borrowed a sum of 38,50,000/- from him and the respondent herein, ₹
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.25
17:19:38 IST
Reason:
viz., Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, being the wife of Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat,
1
stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the loan. It appears that she
also availed financial assistance from the appellant and four cheques
came to be issued by her during September, 2023, in discharge of her
husband’s liability and her own liability. These cheques were deposited
by the appellant at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Opera House Branch,
Mumbai. However, they were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds,
as was intimated to the appellant on 15.09.2023. Thereupon, he filed
four complaint cases in C.C. Nos. 1258, 1259, 1260 and 1261 of 2023
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore.
However, by order dated 12.12.2023, the learned Magistrate returned
the complaint cases for presentation before the jurisdictional Court,
stating that the drawee bank was Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mumbai and,
therefore, his Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint cases.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vide Criminal
Petition Nos. 1237, 1720, 1769 and 1770 of 2024. However, the High
Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and
dismissed his petitions by order dated 05.03.3024. Hence, these
appeals.
2
5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant asserts that the
appellant maintains his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at
its Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, and that he had merely presented the
cheques issued by the respondent at the Bank’s Branch at Opera
House, Mumbai, to be credited to the said account. He would contend
that the High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
appellant maintained his bank account at the Opera House Branch of
Kotak Mahindra Bank in Mumbai and on the strength of this wrong
premise, the High Court confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate,
returning the complaint cases on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
6. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit along with details of
her own account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. Her account statement
dated 25.11.2024 reflects the account number of the appellant as
0412108431. The appellant placed on record the letter issued by the
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, certifying that his
account number in that Branch is 0412108431. The learned counsel for
the respondent fairly states that the appellant earlier maintained his bank
account with the Opera House Branch of the Kotak Mahindra Bank at
Mumbai but, thereafter, he got it transferred to the Bendurwell,
Mangalore Branch. Therefore, as matters stand, it is not in dispute that
the appellant maintains his bank account with the Bendurwell,
Mangalore Branch, of the Kotak Mahindra Bank and merely deposited
3
the respondent’s cheques at its Mumbai Branch for the purpose of
crediting his account in Mangalore.
7. As regards territorial jurisdiction for instituting a complaint in
relation to dishonor of a cheque, Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act makes
it clear that an offence under Section 138 thereof should be inquired into
and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, if the cheque is
delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank
where the payee maintains the account is situated. This provision, as it
stands after its amendment in 2015, was considered in Bridgestone
1
India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh and this Court affirmed that
Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act vests jurisdiction apropos an offence
under Section 138 thereof in the Court where the cheque is delivered for
collection, that is, through an account in the Branch of the Bank where
the payee maintains that account.
8. Therefore, once it is established that, at the time of
presentation of the cheques in question, the appellant maintained his
account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at its Bendurwell, Mangalore
Branch, he was fully justified in filing his complaint cases before the
jurisdictional Court at Mangalore. The understanding to the contrary of
the learned Magistrate at Mangalore was erroneous and completely
opposed to the clear mandate of Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act. The
1
(2016) 2 SCC 75
4
High Court proceeded to confirm the erroneous order passed by the
learned Magistrate under the wrong impression that the appellant
maintained his bank account at the Opera House Branch of the Kotak
Mahindra Bank at Mumbai.
9. The appeals are accordingly allowed; setting aside the
impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru as well as the order dated 12.12.2023 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore.
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore, shall
entertain and expeditiously adjudicate the complaint cases filed by the
appellant in accordance with law.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
............................., J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………………............................., J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
July 25, 2025
New Delhi.
5
2025 INSC 897
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. OF 2025
(@ S.L.P.(Crl.) Nos. 5540-5543 of 2024)
Prakash Chimanlal Sheth … Appellant
Versus
Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KUMAR, J
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue in these appeals is as to where the appellant
was required to file his complaints in relation to offences punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity,
‘N.I. Act’).
3. The appellant’s case was that Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat
borrowed a sum of 38,50,000/- from him and the respondent herein, ₹
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.07.25
17:19:38 IST
Reason:
viz., Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat, being the wife of Keyur Lalitbhai Rajpopat,
1
stood as a guarantor for the repayment of the loan. It appears that she
also availed financial assistance from the appellant and four cheques
came to be issued by her during September, 2023, in discharge of her
husband’s liability and her own liability. These cheques were deposited
by the appellant at Kotak Mahindra Bank, Opera House Branch,
Mumbai. However, they were dishonored due to insufficiency of funds,
as was intimated to the appellant on 15.09.2023. Thereupon, he filed
four complaint cases in C.C. Nos. 1258, 1259, 1260 and 1261 of 2023
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. read with Section 138 of the N.I. Act before
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore.
However, by order dated 12.12.2023, the learned Magistrate returned
the complaint cases for presentation before the jurisdictional Court,
stating that the drawee bank was Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mumbai and,
therefore, his Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint cases.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru under Section 482 Cr.P.C., vide Criminal
Petition Nos. 1237, 1720, 1769 and 1770 of 2024. However, the High
Court confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate and
dismissed his petitions by order dated 05.03.3024. Hence, these
appeals.
2
5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant asserts that the
appellant maintains his bank account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at
its Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, and that he had merely presented the
cheques issued by the respondent at the Bank’s Branch at Opera
House, Mumbai, to be credited to the said account. He would contend
that the High Court proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the
appellant maintained his bank account at the Opera House Branch of
Kotak Mahindra Bank in Mumbai and on the strength of this wrong
premise, the High Court confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate,
returning the complaint cases on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
6. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit along with details of
her own account with Kotak Mahindra Bank. Her account statement
dated 25.11.2024 reflects the account number of the appellant as
0412108431. The appellant placed on record the letter issued by the
Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bendurwell, Mangalore Branch, certifying that his
account number in that Branch is 0412108431. The learned counsel for
the respondent fairly states that the appellant earlier maintained his bank
account with the Opera House Branch of the Kotak Mahindra Bank at
Mumbai but, thereafter, he got it transferred to the Bendurwell,
Mangalore Branch. Therefore, as matters stand, it is not in dispute that
the appellant maintains his bank account with the Bendurwell,
Mangalore Branch, of the Kotak Mahindra Bank and merely deposited
3
the respondent’s cheques at its Mumbai Branch for the purpose of
crediting his account in Mangalore.
7. As regards territorial jurisdiction for instituting a complaint in
relation to dishonor of a cheque, Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act makes
it clear that an offence under Section 138 thereof should be inquired into
and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, if the cheque is
delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank
where the payee maintains the account is situated. This provision, as it
stands after its amendment in 2015, was considered in Bridgestone
1
India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh and this Court affirmed that
Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act vests jurisdiction apropos an offence
under Section 138 thereof in the Court where the cheque is delivered for
collection, that is, through an account in the Branch of the Bank where
the payee maintains that account.
8. Therefore, once it is established that, at the time of
presentation of the cheques in question, the appellant maintained his
account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at its Bendurwell, Mangalore
Branch, he was fully justified in filing his complaint cases before the
jurisdictional Court at Mangalore. The understanding to the contrary of
the learned Magistrate at Mangalore was erroneous and completely
opposed to the clear mandate of Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act. The
1
(2016) 2 SCC 75
4
High Court proceeded to confirm the erroneous order passed by the
learned Magistrate under the wrong impression that the appellant
maintained his bank account at the Opera House Branch of the Kotak
Mahindra Bank at Mumbai.
9. The appeals are accordingly allowed; setting aside the
impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru as well as the order dated 12.12.2023 passed
by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore.
The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fifth Court, Mangalore, shall
entertain and expeditiously adjudicate the complaint cases filed by the
appellant in accordance with law.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
............................., J
(SANJAY KUMAR)
………………............................., J
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
July 25, 2025
New Delhi.
5