Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Transfer Complaint, Raise Objection Before Magistrate : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (January 21) dismissed a petition seeking transfer of various cheque dishonour complaints against the petitioner observing that the lack of territorial jurisdiction of court in which complaint is filed cannot be a ground to transfer the complaint to another court.A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a petition seeking transfer of 22 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against a company from Varanasi, UP to Mumbai, Maharashtra.“The contention of the petitioners is that the trial court before which complaints have been filed by the respondents has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioners are entitled to raise the said contention before the learned trial magistrate who is empowered to return the complaint for presentation to proper court if the magistrate is satisfied that the court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, this ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be considered in transfer petition”, the Court held.The Court observed that the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be raised before the trial magistrate, who has the authority to return the complaint.Under Section 201 of the CrPC, if a magistrate is not competent to take cognizance of an offense, they must either return a written complaint for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement or direct the complainant to the proper court if the complaint is oral. Corresponding provision Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides that if a complaint is made to a magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offense:If the complaint is in writing, it must be returned for presentation to the proper court with an endorsement to that effect.If the complaint is not in writing, the magistrate must direct the complainant to the proper court.The petitioners in the case are accused in 22 complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondents before an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners sought the transfer of these complaints to a competent court in Mumbai, contending that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Varanasi. They argued that the agreements between the parties were executed in Mumbai, the construction work under the agreements was located in Mumbai, and the cheques in question were handed over in Mumbai. Clause 10 of the agreement stipulated that jurisdiction for any legal or arbitration proceedings would lie in Mumbai. The petitioners alleged that the respondents deliberately lodged the cheques in a bank branch in Varanasi to confer jurisdiction upon the Varanasi court. Consequently, they filed the present transfer petition.The Supreme Court concluded that the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction is not valid for seeking a transfer of the complaint. It said that the petitioner can raise this contention before the trial court, which has the authority to make a decision on the matter. Additionally, the court stated that the trial court may grant exemptions from personal appearance to the accused, provided they attend court whenever their presence is deemed mandatory.Case no. – T.P.(Crl.) No. 1035-1056/2024 Diary No. 30735 / 2024Case Title – M/S Kamal Enterprises v. A. K. Constructions CoCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 289Click here to read the order

Lack Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Transfer Complaint, Raise Objection Before Magistrate : Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags