Dishonour of Cheque-Law on Territorial Jurisdiction-Gujarat HC

What are the changes brought in by virtue of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015  relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction to file Complaints of Dishonour of Cheques? Gujarat High Court has explained the principles relating to it in a recent Judgment in Brijendra Enterprise v. State of Gujarat and another with illustrations. The Judgment was delivered by Justice J.B.Pardiwala in an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing a Criminal Complaint filed under Section 138 of NI Act on the ground of lack of territorial Jurisdiction for the Magistrate to try the Case. It is held that “The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill [Act], 2015, inter alia, provides for the following, namely : (i) cases relating to dishonor of cheques under section 138 of the said Act to be inquired and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank, where the payee or the holder in due course maintains the account, is situated; (ii) cases under section 138 pending in any court before the commencement of the proposed legislation to be transferred to the court in accordance with the new scheme of jurisdiction for such cases as proposed under sub-section (2 ) of section 142; (iii) where a complaint has been filed against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under the new scheme of jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 of the said Act against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court, irrespective of whether those cheques were presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court; (iv) where, if more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, the court shall transfer the case of the court having jurisdiction as per the new scheme of jurisdiction proposed under sub-section (2 ) of section 142; and (v) amending Explanation I under section 6 of the said Act which relates to the meaning of expression “a cheque in the electronic form”, as the said meaning is found to be deficient because it presumes drawing of a physical cheque, which is not the objective in preparing “a cheque in the electronic form” and therefore, inserting a new Explanation III in the said section giving reference of the expressions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000”. The Court held that In view of the amendment, a complaint for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Act can be now filed only in the Court situated at the place where the bank, in which the payee has account, is located. He explained the position with the following examples (1) ‘A’ holds an account with the Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad, of ‘XYZ’ Bank, issues a cheque payable at par in favour of ‘B’. ‘B’ holds an account with the M.S. University Road Branch, Vadodara, of the ‘PQR’ Bank, deposits the said cheque at the Surat Branch of the ‘PQR’ Bank and the cheque is dishonoured. The complaint will have to be filed before the Court having the local jurisdiction where the M.S.University Road Branch, Vadodara, of the ‘PQR’ Bank is situated. (2) ‘A’ holds an account with the Navranpura Branch, Ahmedabad, of ‘XYZ’ Bank, issues a cheque payable at par in favour of ‘B’. ‘B’ presents the said cheque at the Vadodara Branch of the ‘XYZ’ Bank (but ‘B’ does not hold account in any branch of the ‘XYZ’ Bank) and the cheque is dishonoured. The complaint will have to be filed before the Court having the local jurisdiction where the Navrangpura Branch, Ahmedabad, of the ‘XYZ’ Bank is situated. “Therefore, to summarise, first, when the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the complaint is to be filed before the Court where the branch of the bank is situated, where the payee or the holder in due course maintains his account and, secondly, when the cheque is presented for payment over the counter, the complaint is to be filed before the Court where the drawer maintains his account. Secondly, once a complaint for dishonour of the cheque is filed in one particular Court at a particular place, then later on if there is any other cheque of the same party (drawer) which has also dishonoured, then all such subsequent complaints for dishonour of the cheques against the same drawer will also have to be filed in the same Court (even if the person presents them in some bank in some other city or area). This would ensure that the drawer of the cheques is not harassed by filing multiple complaints for dishonour at different places. It necessarily implies that even multiple complaints for dishonour of cheques against the same party can be filed only in one Court even though the cheques might have been presented in different banks at different places. Thirdly, all criminal complaints for dishonour of cheques pending as on 15th June 2015 in different Courts in India would be transferred to the Court which has the jurisdiction to try such case in the manner mentioned above, i.e. such pending cases will stand transferred to the Court having jurisdiction over the place where the bank of the payee is located. If there are multiple complaints of dishonour pending between the same parties as on 15th June 2015, then all such complaints would be transferred to the Court having jurisdiction to try the first case. To put it briefly, the (Amendment) Act takes care of the interest of the payee of the cheque while, at the same time, also takes care to see that the drawer of the multiple cheques is not harassed by filing different complaints at different locations to harass him (if more than one cheque is bounced)”. The Court added Justice J.B.Pardiwala also explained that the words “otherwise through an account” in S. 142(2)(b) would mean that the cheque is presented for payment over the counter.