Monday, 18, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Raju Singh Kushwah vs Ramavtar Singh Kushwah
2025 Latest Caselaw 12080 MP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 12080 MP
Judgement Date : 3 December, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju Singh Kushwah vs Ramavtar Singh Kushwah on 3 December, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31001




                                                              1                                          MCRC-21021-2023
              IN       THE           HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                           AT GWALIOR
                                          BEFORE
                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                            MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21021 of 2023

                                            RAJU SINGH KUSHWAH
                                                    Versus
                                          RAMAVTAR SINGH KUSHWAH
         Appearance:
                   Ms. Ayusi Vyas - Advocate for the petitioner.
                   Shri Surendra Singh Dhakad - Advocate for the respondent.
         ............................................................................................................................
                     Reserved on : 27.11.2025
                     Delivered on : 03.12.2025
         ............................................................................................................................
                This petition having been heard and reserved for orders, coming on for
         pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh
         Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
                                                                  ORDER

The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

It is humbly prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 27/02/2023 passed in case no. 1008/2016 by the ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sewda, District Datia, M.P., letter dated 04/03/2023 issued by JMFC, Sewda, District- Datia, M.P. and the letter/order dated 23/03/2023 issued/passed by ld. Sessions Judge, District- Bhind, M.P may kindly be set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Datia, which was registered as Case No. 1008/2016. During the proceedings, the entire defence evidence was completed and the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31001

2 MCRC-21021-2023 matter had reached the stage of judgment. However, at the final stage, the JMFC suddenly observed that the court did not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, hence, a letter dated 04.03.2023 was issued by the JMFC stating that because of the 2015 amendment to the NI Act , the case should not continue in Datia. The parties were thereafter directed to appear before the Sessions Court, Bhind. The Sessions Judge, relying on the judgment in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh , held that the complaint must be returned to the complainant for presentation before the proper court having jurisdiction. Consequently, the matter was sent back to the JMFC for returning the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned orders/letters, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the orders and praying for expeditious disposal of the Section

138 complaint filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Trial Court did not consider that transferring the case at such a late stage after all evidence is completed would cause serious injustice to the petitioner. The case is almost finished, so it should not be shifted now. It was further argued that in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) , the Supreme Court clearly held that if the trial has already started and evidence under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has been recorded, then the case should continue in the same court where it was originally filed. This principle still applies even after the 2015 amendment to the NI Act, as the amendment did not disturb or overrule this part of the judgment. Counsel also submitted that under Section 142 of the NI Act , when a cheque is presented through an NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31001

3 MCRC-21021-2023 account, jurisdiction lies where the drawer's bank branch is located. In this case, the cheque is a bearer cheque, and the drawer's account is in Datia. Therefore, the Datia Court has the correct jurisdiction, and the Trial Court failed to consider this important fact. On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 as well as letters dated 04.03.2023 and 23.03.2023 be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that once the Trial Court realized the lack of jurisdiction, it was duty-bound to take corrective action, hence, prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act had already reached the stage of final judgment after completion of the evidence of both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed a grave error in holding, at such an advanced stage, that it lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the cheque in question was a bearer cheque and the drawer's account was maintained at Datia, therefore jurisdiction was clearly vested in the Datia Court. The subsequent directions issued by the JMFC and the Sessions Judge, based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, have resulted in unnecessary delay and prejudice to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:31001

4 MCRC-21021-2023 JMFC, Sewda, District Datia, as well as the letters dated 04.03.2023 and 23.03.2023, are hereby quashed and set aside. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS is allowed, and the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the complaint in case No.1008/2016 and conclude the matter expeditiously in accordance with law.





                                                              (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                                                       JUDGE

         neetu
         NEETU    Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK
                  DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                  PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR,
                  2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e0



         SHASHA
                  66bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2c
                  e, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  BENCH AT GWALIOR,CID - 7063574,
                  postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
                  serialNumber=e60a9bbfc39e0ee500eaade


         NK
                  1e0b3b8565cb3a7dc9f5cd048197df0ff3149
                  ae58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK
                  Date: 2025.12.03 18:14:59 +05'30'
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter