The Gauhati High Court reaffirmed that Section 138 N.I. Act cases must be tried in the “natural” jurisdiction prescribed by Section 142(2) N.I. Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd v. Inderpal Singh. The pendency of related civil suits or claims of inconvenience is not a sufficient ground for transfer. This judgment consolidates existing precedent and serves as binding authority for transfer petitions in cheque bounce cases across subordinate courts in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Tr.P.(Crl.)/50/2024 of SHAHIDUL MIYAH Vs JAHANARA BEGUM |
| CNR | GAHC010264302024 |
| Date of Registration | 12-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS |
| Court | Gauhati High Court (Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts within Gauhati High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Negotiable Instruments Act |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that Section 138 N.I. Act proceedings must be filed in the “natural territorial jurisdiction” as laid down by Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act and as interpreted in Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd v. Inderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75. The mere existence of related civil proceedings in another district is not a sufficient ground for transfer. Mere inconvenience of the accused, absent extraordinary circumstances, cannot override the statutory and precedential mandates. The criminal proceeding was correctly filed in the jurisdiction where the cheque was presented and dishonoured, and must continue there. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Rs. 15,00,000 alleged loan; two cheques dishonoured on stop payment and account block. Respondent filed Section 138 N.I. Act case in Mangaldoi, where her bank account is located. Petitioner sought transfer to Barpeta, citing two pending civil title suits and inconvenience. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate criminal courts under Gauhati High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar transfer petitions under Section 138 N.I. Act |
| Follows | Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the proper court for Section 138 N.I. Act proceedings is strictly determined by Section 142(2), post-2015 amendment.
- Civil suits or mere logistical inconvenience do not warrant transfer of cheque bounce cases from their prescribed forum.
- The court has clarified that the natural territorial jurisdiction cannot be set aside on grounds of convenience unless compelling circumstances exist.
- Lawyers must direct transfer requests to focus strictly on statutory criteria; related civil matters are not a standalone ground for such relief.
- Accused may seek exemption from personal appearance for non-essential dates if genuine difficulty arises, but not transfer of forum.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
The High Court considered the claim under Section 447 BNSS for transfer of the Section 138 N.I. Act case from Mangaldoi to Barpeta. It examined Section 142(2) of the N.I. Act and the settled law as expounded by the Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd v. Inderpal Singh. The judgment directly relied on paragraph 13 of Bridgestone, which establishes that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the bank branch where the payee deposits the cheque. The court found the case at Mangaldoi to be within its “natural jurisdiction,” since the dishonoured cheques were presented and returned at that location. The pendency of civil suits in Barpeta and the personal inconvenience claimed by the petitioner were held insufficient to override the jurisdictional mandate of statute and precedent. The petition for transfer was thus dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought transfer as two civil title suits between the same parties were pending in Barpeta.
- Claimed inconvenience and higher expense in defending the case at Mangaldoi.
- Asserted that since the respondent also resides in Barpeta, the transfer would serve convenience.
Respondent
- Pointed out that respondent/complainant currently resides at Mangaldoi.
- Cheques were presented and dishonoured in Mangaldoi (State Bank of India branch).
- Asserted that the complaint is properly filed in the jurisdictional court at Mangaldoi; no proper basis for transfer.
Factual Background
The dispute arose from an alleged loan of Rs. 15,00,000 by the respondent to the petitioner. To repay, the petitioner issued two cheques. Both cheques were dishonoured upon presentation at the respondent’s bank at Mangaldoi, due to stop payment and account block. The respondent instituted a Section 138 N.I. Act proceeding in Mangaldoi. The petitioner sought transfer of this criminal case to Barpeta, citing pending civil title suits over land transactions and claimed inconvenience.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 447 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023): The court analyzed the conditions under which the High Court may transfer cases, including requirements of convenience, fair trial, and ends of justice.
- Section 142(2), Negotiable Instruments Act: Cited as determinative of territorial jurisdiction for cheque bounce cases; the amendment and Supreme Court interpretation make the situs of the payee’s bank branch (where the cheque is presented) determinative.
- No “reading down”, “reading in”, or constitutional provisions discussed.
Procedural Innovations
- The court clarified that accused persons facing bona fide practical difficulty may seek representation on non-essential dates, but this does not extend to transfer of the proceeding itself.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Bridgestone India Private Limited v. Inderpal Singh, solidifying existing law.