Case Note & Summary
The present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) was filed by Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through its Power of Attorney, Kuldipsinh Mahendrasinh Sarvaiya, against the State of Gujarat and another respondent. The applicant challenged the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, in Criminal Inquiry No.07 of 2022, whereby the Magistrate ordered the return of the criminal complaint to the complainant on the ground that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The brief facts are that the opponent had taken a vehicle loan from the applicant and issued a cheque No.000044 dated 24.11.2021 for ₹1,75,000 drawn on HDFC Bank, Mahuva Branch, towards repayment. The cheque was deposited by the complainant at Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch, but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) before the Magistrate at Mahuva. The Magistrate, however, returned the complaint holding that the court had no territorial jurisdiction. The High Court examined the issue and found that the cheque was drawn on HDFC Bank, Mahuva Branch, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Mahuva. The court noted that under Section 142 of the NI Act, the offence under Section 138 can be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is drawn, among other places. Since the drawee bank branch was in Mahuva, the Magistrate had jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Return of Complaint - Section 201 CrPC, Section 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The Magistrate returned the complaint holding lack of territorial jurisdiction despite the cheque being drawn on a bank branch within his jurisdiction - The High Court held that the Magistrate erred as the branch where the cheque was drawn falls within his territorial jurisdiction, and the complaint could not be returned on that ground (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in returning the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction when the cheque was drawn on a bank branch within the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, in Criminal Inquiry No.07 of 2022, and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Return of complaint under Section 201 of CrPC
- Power of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 302
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed by Subordinate Court) No. 552 of 2022
Mr. Hitesh S Padhya, Mr. Zubin F Bharda for the Applicant; Mr. Rohan Raval, APP for Respondent No.1; Respondent No.2 refused served
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. through POA Kuldipsinh Mahendrasinh Sarvaiya
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application against order returning complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Remedy Sought
The applicant/complainant sought setting aside of the Magistrate's order dated 29.03.2022 returning the complaint and direction to proceed with the complaint.
Filing Reason
The learned Magistrate returned the complaint holding that the court had no territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry.
Previous Decisions
The learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, passed an order on 29.03.2022 in Criminal Inquiry No.07 of 2022 returning the complaint to the complainant.
Issues
Whether the learned Magistrate was justified in returning the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction when the cheque was drawn on a bank branch within the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicant argued that the cheque was drawn on HDFC Bank, Mahuva Branch, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Mahuva, and therefore the Magistrate had jurisdiction under Section 142 of the NI Act.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, an offence under Section 138 can be tried by a court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is drawn, among other places. Since the cheque in question was drawn on HDFC Bank, Mahuva Branch, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Mahuva, the Magistrate had jurisdiction and erred in returning the complaint.
Judgment Excerpts
The present revision application preferred under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, assails the judgment and order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District - Bhavnagar in Criminal Inquiry No.07 of 2022, wherein, the learned Magistrate on 29.03.2022 ordered to return the criminal complaint back to the complainant along with the list and other documents by coming to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva. On 29.03.2022, the Magistrate passed an order returning the complaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The complainant then filed the present revision application before the High Court of Gujarat.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 397, 401, 201
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: 138, 142
