The High Court · 2025

representative Mr. Vinay Kumar Saxena s/o Late Dr.K.C.Saxena, Age - It/ajor, Occ- Pvt Employ, Having its registered office at Eastern Court Unit No. 201- 2O2,Plot No. '12, V.N. Purav Marg, S.T.Road, Chembur, Mumbai-400 071... . ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumslances stated ih the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the complaint in C.C-No.151 of 2023 on the file of the Xl Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad' and quash the same, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. l.A. NO: 2OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including the appearance of the petitioners in C.C.No.151 ol 2023 on the file of the Xl Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Crimtnal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of SIMT. R.ANNAPURNA, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and Sri Satish Kumar Kuna appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER '.w / ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELT NGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEI/ EADA CRIMIN AL PETITION No.7255 OF 2O2t DATE:30-12-2025 Between: M/s. Vanita Traders and another And Petitione rs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad and another Iespondents ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petiticr:rs-accused , Nos.'t and 2 seeking to quash the proceedings agiinst them in C.C.No.151 of 2023 on the file of learned Xl \4etropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad, registered fcr the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable lnstruments,\x, 1881 (for short, 'the N.l. Act').

2. Heard Ms. R. Annapurna, learned cour;el for the petitioners, Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, Iearne I Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and Sri Satish 2 ITt).J Cd.p No.7255 of2025 Kumar Kuna, learned counsel for respondent No.2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present C C.No. 151 of 2023 on the file of learned Xl tr/etropolitan Magistrate at Nampaily, Hyderabad, registered for the offence under section 138 of the N.r. Act against the petitioners herein is not maintainable, as the said Court lacks jurisdrction. She further submitted that the cheque in question was presented at yES Bank Limited, Chembur Branch, Ir/umbai, and the same was returned by the sard Bank, but the complaint is lodged at Nampally Court. She further submitted that when the cheque is returned at Mumbai, where the de facto complainant has an abcount, the proceedings have to be initiated at Mumbai, but not at Nampally. She, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings rn the present C.C. against the petitioners herein.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that though the cheque is presented at Mumbai, the account of the payee is at Somajiguda Branch and therefore, respondent No.2_ complainant filed the complaint at concerned Court at Nampally, and the same is very much maintainabre. He further submitted thaF the jurisdiction lies at the Court within whose limits the I payee's bank account is maintained. The learnec lounsel, J L I IJ.J ).1o.72i5 ol2tl25 support of his submissions, has relied upon the jud'] nent of the Honourable Supreme Court in Prakash Chimanla Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopatl. He, therefore, prayed t() lismiss the Criminal Petition 5 6 Perused the record The point involved in the present case is with r:gard to the jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a complaint under Section 138 of the N l Act. Section 1a2(2) of the N.l. Act is rr: :vant in this regard and the same is extracted hereunder "142. Cognizance of offences. - (1) xxx (2) fhe olfence under section 138 shall be rquired into and tried only by a court within whc s : local jurisdiction, - (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection thr ugh an account, the branch of the bank where the I lyee or holder in due course, as the case may be, rr arntains the account, is situated, or (b) if the cheque is presented for paymerLl by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise th r rugh an account, the branch of the drawee bank vrl ere the drawer maintains the account, is situated," | 1025 La\lSuit (SC) 1023 4 ETD.J Crl.P.No.7255 0f2025 Thus, the Court which has jurisdiction over the area in which the payee account is maintained, is vested with the power of trying the cases under Section 138 of the N.l. Act. ln the present case, the payee's account is at yES Bank, Somajiguda Branch. Thus, the complaint was filed at Nampally Court and the same was registered. The petitioners contend that the Court at Nampally does not have jurisdiction as the Cheque was returned at Mumbai.

7. ln Prakash Chimanlal Sheth,s case (supra), the cheques were presented at li,4umbar and the same were dishonoured due to insufficient funds, thereby the complainant filed four cases under Section 138 of the N l. Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalore. But, the learned Magistrate has returned them statrng that the drawee bank is at t\rrumbai and therefore, the Court at lrlangalore does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant went on appeal before the High Court of Karnataka and the High Court has confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate, against which, the complainant approached the Honourable Apex Court. The complainant maintained account with the Kotak Mahindra Bank at Mangalore Branch and that he had merely presented the cheque .w E I l).J ' \o. r255 ol'-'0 2 5 at Opera House Branch, Mumbai, to be creditec to the said 5 account. The Honourable Apex Court held tha: as regards territorial jurisdiction for institution of a complaint t relation to dishonour of Cheque, Section 142(2)(a) of the N.l ict rnakes it clear that an offence under Section 138 of the N.I r :t should be inquired into and tried only by a Court within nihose local jurisdiction, rf the cheque is delivered for collectior through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee rtaintains the account is situated. Therefore, once it is establislrr d that at the trme of presentation of the cheques in question, tl- r :omplainant maintained his account with the Kotak l\rlahirr ra Bank at Mangalore Branch, he was fully justified in filing he complaint cases before the jurisdictional Court at [\4ar1aiore. The understanding to the contrary by the learned /lagistrate at Mangalore was erroneous and completely oppos: j to the clear mandate of Section 142(2)(a) of the N.l. Act. Bv observing so, the Honourable Apex Court has set aside the orde ,.s of the High Cou( as well as the learned Magistrate and h;l ; directed the Magistrate to entertain and adjudicate the complai- cases. B. The facts of the said case squarely attract c the case on hand. ln the present case, the payee maintainecl the account at r') 6 LID.I Crl.P.No.7255 0t 2025 Somajiguda Branch, but presented the Cheque at Chembur Branch, Mumbai. Since the account of the payee is at somajiguda Branch, the court which has jurisdiction over Somajiguda i.e., the Court at Nampally can entertain the complaint. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the court at Nampaily does not have jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law. Hence, in the light of the decision in prakash Chimanlal sheth's case (supra) and in view of the above herd discussion, it is opined that the Criminal petition lacks merit. I Accordingly, the Criminal petition rs dismrssed. [Viscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/. K. MAD ASSISTANT RE //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, 1 2 J TPI(PSL The Xl Metropolitan Ma gistrate at Nampally, H yderab a The Station House Offi cer, Police Station, Panjagutta, Hyderabad Two CCs to Public Pro secutor, High Court for ih e State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

4. One CC to SMT. R ANNAPURNA Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:3011212025 ORDER \-: J t, 16 () ,-) I -r v '., /fi 1 CRLP.No.7255 ot 2025 S TATU. CRIMINAL PETITION IS DISMISIiED g ^J &