Summary and Analysis of Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat (Criminal Appeal No. [ ] of 2025)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Prakash Chimanlal Sheth vs. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat
(Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal Nos. [ ] of 2025)

2. Relevant Laws and Sections

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
  Section 138: Penalizes dishonor of cheques due to insufficient funds.
  Section 142(2)(a): Specifies territorial jurisdiction for filing complaints.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 200: Procedure for magistrate to examine complainant.
  Section 482: High Court’s inherent power to quash proceedings.

3. Basic Case Details

• Parties:
  Appellant: Prakash Chimanlal Sheth (complainant, lender).
  Respondent: Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat (accused, borrower/guarantor).

• Dispute:
  Respondent issued 4 cheques (Sept 2023) to discharge her husband’s debt (₹38.5 lakhs) and her own liability.
  Cheques dishonored due to insufficient funds (intimated on 15.09.2023).

• Legal Journey:
  Trial Court (Mangalore): Returned complaints (12.12.2023), citing lack of jurisdiction (cheques deposited in Mumbai).
  High Court (Karnataka): Upheld trial court’s order (05.03.2024).

• Supreme Court Appeal: Challenged jurisdictional error.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Core Issue

"Which court has jurisdiction to try a Section 138 case when cheques are deposited in one city but the payee’s bank account is in another?"

Court’s Analysis

1. Factual Clarification:
   Appellant’s bank account was in Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bendurwell Branch, Mangalore (not Mumbai).
   Cheques were deposited in Mumbai branch but credited to Mangalore account.

2. Legal Provision (Section 142(2)(a) NI Act):
   "Complaints must be filed where the payee’s bank branch is located – not where cheques are deposited."
   Precedent Relied On:
   Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Inderpal Singh (2016):
   "Jurisdiction lies where the payee maintains their account, not where cheques are presented."

3. Lower Courts’ Error:
   Trial Court & High Court wrongly assumed appellant’s account was in Mumbai (Opera House Branch).
   Actual Fact: Account was in Mangalore; Mumbai branch was only a collection point.

Decision

• Appeals Allowed:
  Orders of High Court and Trial Court set aside.

• Direction:
  "Mangalore Court to try the complaints expeditiously."

Key Legal Principle

"Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonor cases is determined by the location of the payee’s bank branch – not where cheques are deposited."

Outcome

• Jurisdiction Established: Mangalore court has authority to hear the case.

• Complaints Revived: To be adjudicated by Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore.