Training and Recruitment info - please reach 040- 4003 2244-47
+91 98 48 01 9915 | | Reach us


February 8, 2016


A complaint was filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act with allegations that an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- was taken by the petitioner/accused on credit and against repayment of the said amount, three different cheques were given to him cheque (1) and (2) being of Axis Bank, Gwalior and cheque (3) of HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji New Delhi. When these cheques were sent to the concerning banks for encashment, same were dishonored for want of sufficient funds in the account of holder of the cheques. Thereafter, legal notice was given in writing by the complainant for payment of the amount within seven days from the receipt of the notice, but no such payment was made by the petitioner. The complaint then filed against the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act.

It was directed by the trial court that no complaint will lie at Gwalior in view of the fact that the third cheque was dishonored from HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji New Delhi. Against that order, the revision was preferred by the complainant. Same was allowed and the trial court was directed to proceed with the trial against the accused in respect of all the three dishonored cheques.

The instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner on being aggrieved by the order passed by the revision court.


The issue here was that since third cheque was issued to be drawn at HDFC Bank Ltd. Kalkaji, New Delhi, therefore in the event of dishonor of the said cheque, the remedy of filing complaint lies only at New Delhi and not at Gwalior.



  1. The learned counsel contended that the court therefore lacks jurisdiction in entertaining such complaint so far as third cheque is concerned and the order passed in a revision being illegal is liable to be quashed in conformation with the order passed by the Trial Magistrate.
  2. In support of this, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & another.


  1. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that all the cheques were issued in one transaction for repayment of the loan amount. Both the parties are residing at Gwalior.
  2. He also relied upon the ratio of guidelines issued in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, and contended that the same have been followed in due manner by the revision court before reaching on conclusion and therefore no inference is warranted in this revision.


The case law clearly indicated that when offence of dishonored cheque under Section 138 of NI Act is committed along with other offences in a single transaction within the meaning of section 220(1) read with section 182 of CrPC or is covered by the provision of section 182(1) read with 184 and 220 thereof then said offence can be tried jointly at one place by a court having jurisdiction for another offences.

Therefore, the court held that the order passed by the revision court does not call for any interference. The petition was dismissed accordingly.


  • By admin  gg 0 Comments   


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *