Facts of the Case

The petitioner company entered into an agreement with the respondent firm and advanced money. In discharge of liability, the respondents issued multiple post-dated cheques drawn on IDBI Bank, Hyderabad.

Upon presentation, certain cheques were dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” and other reasons. The petitioner issued statutory notice but did not receive payment, leading to filing of complaints under Section 138 NI Act in Delhi.

However, the trial courts returned the complaints for presentation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether Delhi courts have territorial jurisdiction to try offences under Section 138 NI Act when cheques are “payable at par” or “multi-city cheques”.
  2. Whether presentation of cheque at a non-home branch confers jurisdiction on that place.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The cheques were “payable at par” and could be presented at any Core Banking Solution (CBS) branch.
  • RBI guidelines allow encashment at any branch; therefore, jurisdiction should lie where the cheque is presented.
  • The complainant has the right to file complaint at the place where cheque was deposited and dishonoured, irrespective of the drawer’s bank branch.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • Jurisdiction lies only where the drawee bank (home branch of the accused) is situated.
  • Reliance placed on Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra, which clarified that place of dishonour determines jurisdiction.
  • Presentation at a different branch does not change the legal position of jurisdiction.

Court’s Findings / Order

  • The Delhi High Court held that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the place where the cheque is dishonoured, i.e., the location of the drawee bank.
  • “Payable at par” or multi-city cheque facility does not alter jurisdiction.
  • Presentation at a non-home branch does not confer jurisdiction on that branch.
  • RBI guidelines are meant for operational convenience, not for determining legal jurisdiction.
  • The Court upheld the trial court’s orders returning the complaints.

Final Order:

  • Petitions dismissed.
  • Complaints to be filed before the court having proper territorial jurisdiction.

Important Clarification by Court

  • Jurisdiction under Section 138 NI Act is strictly linked to the place of dishonour of cheque.
  • Complainant cannot choose jurisdiction based on place of presentation or notice.
  • Multi-city cheque facility does not change the nature of drawee bank.
  • Section 177 Cr.P.C. applies—offence must be tried where it is committed.

Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2014:DHC:7266/VPV19122014CRLMM43802014.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.