Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 01 July 2026
Case Overview
- Appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 11501/2024 and 11702/2024) filed by Mukesh Sharma (appellant) against Vinod Kumar Agrawal (respondent) challenging the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur order dated 06 March 2024.
- The High Court order had transferred complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) from Bhilwara to Ajmer, on the ground that a charge‑sheet for offences under Sections 403 and 417 IPC had been filed against the appellant in Ajmer concerning the same cheques.
- The paper book shows that on 20 August 2024 the predecessor Bench issued notice and stayed the impugned High Court order; despite service completion, no representative appeared for the respondent, allowing the Court to proceed.
- Counsel for the appellant argued that jurisdiction lies with the court where the branch of the bank in which the payee maintains the account is situated. The appellant’s account is with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Bhilwara, establishing Bhilwara as the locus of cause of action. The complaint was originally filed in 2019; transfer petitions were filed in 2022.
- The Court referred to the coordinate Bench decision in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. M/s HEG Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2581), which held that for an account‑payee cheque, jurisdiction is vested in the court of the payee’s bank branch.
- Based on the precedent and the fact that evidence collection began in 2019, the Court concluded that jurisdiction vests exclusively with the Bhilwara courts.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court order dated 06 March 2024.
- It declared that the Courts in Bhilwara have exclusive jurisdiction to enquire into and try the offences under Section 138 of the NI Act alleged to have been committed by the appellant.
- The signed order was placed on file; any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Topics: Jurisdiction, Section 138 NI Act