Recently, the Orissa High Court declined to entertain a transfer petition seeking relocation of a cheque dishonour case from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar, holding that the proper course for the complainant is to seek return of the complaint under Section 224 of the BNSS, 2023. The Court emphasized that power to transfer proceedings should not be exercised routinely and must be reserved for exceptional circumstances.
The petitioner, complainant filed a transfer petition under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Surakhya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking to move the proceedings from the Court of JMFC-II, Cuttack to JMFC-IV, Bhubaneswar. The cheque in question was issued by the accused from IndusInd Bank, Cuttack and was deposited by the petitioner at IndusInd Bank, Lewis Road Branch, Bhubaneswar. The cheque was returned dishonoured with the reason "Drawer's signature not as per mandate."
Following legal advice, the complaint was initially filed at Cuttack instead of Bhubaneswar. The petitioner argued that the complaint should have been filed at Bhubaneswar under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the payee's bank was located there.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the current Magistrate at JMFC-II, Cuttack was merely holding additional charge due to the vacancy, and could not transfer the matter to the competent court. He further submitted that withdrawing and re-filing the complaint could lead to dismissal on limitation grounds under Section 142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act. Hence, the petitioner requested the High Court to direct the transfer of the complaint to JMFC-IV, Bhubaneswar.
The High Court referred to Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act which states that a complaint should be filed where the payee maintains their account if the cheque is deposited through a bank account. Accordingly, the Court agreed that Bhubaneswar had proper jurisdiction.
However, the Court invoked Section 224 of the BNSS, which is equivalent to Section 201 of the Cr.P.C., and held that in cases where a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction, the proper procedure is to return the complaint to the complainant with an endorsement to present it before the competent court. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Canbank Financial Services v. Pallav Sheth, the High Court reiterated that when jurisdiction is lacking, the complaint must be returned, not transferred.
The Court further cited the recent Supreme Court decision in M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., emphasizing that transfer of trial proceedings based on jurisdictional grounds should not be treated as routine and must be exercised with caution.
Dismissing the transfer petition, the Court permitted the petitioner to file an application before JMFC-II, Cuttack for return of the complaint. If such an application is made, the Magistrate (or in-charge Magistrate) was directed to promptly return the complaint with proper endorsement as per Section 224(a) of the BNSS, allowing the petitioner to file it afresh before the appropriate court at Bhubaneswar.
The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Sangram Keshari Routray vs. Hexagon InfrastructuresPrivate Ltd., Cuttack & Anr.
Case No: TRPCRL No.58 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. H.S. Mishra
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. R. Nayak
Picture Source :
