S. 224 BNSS | Magistrate Lacking Power To Take Cognisance Must Return Complaint To Jurisdictional Court: Orissa High Court

While adjudicating a case relating to cheque bounce, the Orissa High Court has reiterated that a Magistrate, who does not have power to take cognizance for an offence for the want of territorial jurisdiction, must endorse and return the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Court.Elucidating the requirement under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra also observed –“Section 224 of the BNSS mandates, if a complaint is made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for prosecution before the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect.”Briefly put, the case emanated from a cheque being issued by the accused, drawn on IndusInd Bank, Cuttack Chandi Road Branch, Cuttack, which was later presented by the complainant (the petitioner herein) in his Bank Branch at Lewis Road, Bhubaneswar. The cheque was dishonoured and returned to him with a noting.Though, as per Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner ought to have filed the complaint case before the jurisdictional Court at Bhubaneswar, he erroneously filed it before the Court of JMFC-II, Cuttack.He expressed apprehension that in case he withdraws the case for its re-institution before the jurisdictional Court at Bhubaneswar, the same may not be entertained due to lapse of limitation period. Thus, he filed this transfer petition before the High Court under Section 447 of the BNSS seeking transfer of his complaint case from Cuttack to the jurisdictional Court at Bhubaneswar.Referring to Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, the Court said if a person deposits the cheque in his bank account and the said cheque is bounced, he can file the case where his bank is located. If the said person presents the cheque directly to the bank for payment and the said cheque is dishonoured, he can file the case where the other person's bank, who issued the cheque, is located.Therefore, it was clear that the petitioner should have filed his case before the jurisdictional Court at Bhubaneswar since he maintained his Bank account in a branch located within the territorial jurisdiction of Bhubaneswar.Though the Court acknowledged the error committed by the petitioner, it referred to a recent Supreme Court ruling on M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 292, wherein it was held that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine, more particularly, on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Court to try the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.Justice Mishra underlined the provision under Section 224 of the BNSS (pari materia to Section 201, CrPC) which required the Magistrate lacking cognizance power to endorse and return the complaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Court.“In view of the said specific provision under section 224 of the BNSS, which is akin to Section 201 of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the view that the present Petitioner, who is the Complainant in 1CC Case No.172 of 2024, instead of filing an application under Section 447 of BNSS before this Court for transfer of proceeding, should have moved appropriate application before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Cuttack for return of the complaint, with proper endorsement, enabling him to re-file the same before the Court having jurisdiction at Bhubaneswar.”Resultantly, the Court asked the petitioner to move an application before the JMFC-II, Cuttack seeking to invoke Section 224, BNSS. Upon receiving such application, the Magistrate was ordered to return the complaint with proper endorsement so as to enable the petitioner to re-file the case before the competent Court at Bhubaneswar.Case Title: Sangram Keshari Routray v. Hexagon Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.Case No: TPCRL No. 58 of 2025Date of Judgment: July 30, 2025Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Mishra & Mrs. R. Nayak, AdvocatesCounsel for the Respondents: NoneCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 101Click Here To Read/Download Order

S. 224 BNSS | Magistrate Lacking Power To Take Cognisance Must Return Complaint To Jurisdictional Court: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags