If the cheque is presented in any branch of a bank in which the payee holds an account, jurisdiction to entertain a complaint filed, would be at the place where the cheque has been presented.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 15.03.2017

Cheque is drawn on the Union Bank of India, Chandigarh, dated 02.05.2006, was presented for encashment at the IDBI Bank, Indore, which intimated its dishonor to the appellant on 04.08.2006 -- Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore, would have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings, after the promulgation of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 -- Words “...as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times...” used with reference to Section 142(2), in Section 142A(1) gives retrospectivity to the provision -- Judgment in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (2014) 9 SCC 129 would also not non-suit the appellant for the relief claimed.

(SC) Decided on: 24.11.2015

Cheque in question was presented for encashment by the complainant at Sangrur -- Hence, the Court at Sangrur has the jurisdiction to try the complaint.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2015

Remedies available to payee – Relief introduced by Section 138 of the N.I. Act is in addition to the contemplations in the IPC -- It is still open to such a payee recipient of a dishonoured cheque to lodge a FIR with the Police or file a Complaint directly before the concerned Magistrate -- If the payee succeeds in establishing that the inducement for accepting a cheque which subsequently bounced had occurred where he resides or ordinarily transacts business, he will not have to suffer the travails of journeying to the place where the cheque has been dishonoured -- All remedies under the IPC and Cr.PC are available to such a payee if he chooses to pursue this course of action, rather than a Complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act – Payee can always file a suit for recovery wherever the cause of action arises dependent on his choosing.

(SC) Decided on: 01.08.2014