Gujarat High Court
Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd ... vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY
SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 556 of 2022
==========================================================
SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY LTD THRO KULDIPSINH
MAHENDRASINH SARVAIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HITESH S PADHYA(3877) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ZUBIN F BHARDA(159) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. UTKARSH SHARMA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
REFUSED SERVED (R)(70) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
Date : 20/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present revision application preferred under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
assails the judgment and order passed by the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuva, District -
Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to the "learned Magistrate") in
Criminal Inquiry No.4 of 2022 wherein, the learned Magistrate
on 29.03.2022 ordered to return the criminal complaint back to
the complainant along with the list and other documents by
coming to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no
territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry.
2. The brief facts of the case is that opponent-respondent
had taken a vehicle loan from the Complainant-applicant. The
respondent failed to pay regular installments, and after
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
repeated demands, the complainant issued Cheque No.
107065 dated 25/11/2021, drawn on the State Bank of India,
Jesar Br., Tal. Jesar, District Bhavnagar, for an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/-, duly signed by him towards his legal dues under
the loan account. The said cheque was drawn from the account
maintained by the Opponent with the State Bank of India, Jesar
Br., Tal. Jesar, District Bhavnagar, State of Gujarat. The
Complainant deposited the cheque with Axis Bank, Mahuva
Branch, Taluka Mahuva, District Bhavnagar, Gujarat. However,
the cheque was dishonoured and returned with the memo
bearing the endorsement "Account Closed." The Complainant
thereafter issued a statutory notice dated 07/12/2021 from
Mahuva under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
As the Opponent failed to make the payment within the
statutory period, the Complainant has filed the complaint
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before
the learned Magistrate wherein, the learned Magistrate
ordered to return the criminal complaint back to the
complainant along with the list and other documents by
coming to a conclusion that the learned Magistrate had no
territorial jurisdiction to try the criminal inquiry. Hence, the
present application.
3. Though rule has been issued to the respondents, no one
has appeared on their behalf.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
5. Mr. Bharda, learned advocate for the applicant, submits
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that he lacks
territorial jurisdiction by misinterpreting Section 142(2)(a) of
the Negotiable Instruments Act. He points out that the
Explanation to the said section provides that if a cheque is
deposited for collection at any branch of the payee's bank, it is
deemed to be delivered to the branch where the payee holds
the account. In this case, the cheque was deposited at Axis
Bank, Mahuva Branch, and the dishonour intimation was also
issued from the same branch. Thus, territorial jurisdiction lies
with the Magistrate at Mahuva, District Bhavnagar. It is
submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly interpreted
the judgment in Brijendra Enterprise C/o. Shail Enterprise
v. State of Gujarat [2016 (0) AIJ-GJ-234963], which clearly
holds that the complaint must be filed where the bank branch
is situated if the cheque was deposited through an account. As
the cheque in question was deposited at Axis Bank, Mahuva
Branch under the Cash Management System, jurisdiction lies
solely with the Mahuva Court. Hence, Mr. Bharda contends that
the impugned order is contrary to law, and prays that it be
quashed and set aside, and the complaint be directed to
proceed before the learned Magistrate at Mahuva, District
Bhavnagar.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and
having perused the material on record, it appears that the
learned Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground of
lack of territorial jurisdiction. The impugned cheque was issued
by the respondent through his bank. As per the Core Banking
System (CBS), e-clearing of cheques and online banking
transactions are permissible, and the applicant was allowed to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
deposit the cheque at any local branch of Axis Bank where
they conduct their business. The cheque was deposited at Axis
Bank, Mahuva Branch, and it is admitted that the information
regarding the dishonour of the cheque was communicated to
the applicant-complainant by the Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch.
7. Perusing the provisions of Sections 138, 141, and 142 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is evident that these
sections provide the legal framework for taking cognizance of
the offence. Section 142(a) of the NI Act clearly reads as
under:
61. It is clear on a reading of Section 142(2) (a) and the
Explanation thereto that, for the purposes of clause (a),
where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch
of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then,
the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to
the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in
due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned trial Court has committed error in
arriving the conclusion that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to try the case and the Exhibit 1 and 3 list along with
documents is ordered to be returned to the complainant /
applicant on production of the certified copies of Exhibit 1 and
3 list.
9. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 142(2)(a)
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the issue of territorial
jurisdiction as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shri
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.RA/556/2022 ORDER DATED: 20/11/2025
undefined
Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank
Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 508, and by the
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Krishnai Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
through Director Ketan Anant Raj v. State of Gujarat,
rendered in Special Criminal Application No.3942 of 2018
dated 23.08.2023 [2023 (0) GUJHC 43167], there remains no
doubt that the impugned orders suffer from legal infirmity. In
the present case, the cheque was delivered at Axis Bank,
Mahuva Branch. The Cash Management System (CMS)
permitted the bank to collect the cheque through its branch.
Since the cheque was delivered to Axis Bank, Mahuva Branch
and subsequently returned dishonoured due to "Account
Closed," the Court at Mahuva clearly has territorial jurisdiction.
10. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, Mahuva, District -
Bhavnagar, is directed to permit the applicant to present the
complaint, and it is further directed that the criminal inquiry
shall proceed in accordance with law. The application stands
allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
NITIN MAKWANA
