Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat

2025 INSC 897 Non-reportable

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

JUDGMENT

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

India Private Limited vs. Inderpal Singh 1 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