Under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, territorial jurisdiction for a cheque bounce case under Section 138 lies strictly with the court having authority over the payee’s home branch (where the payee maintains their bank account), rather than a separate branch where the cheque was physically deposited or collected. [1, 2]
If a complaint has been filed in the wrong jurisdiction due to an error by the bank, complainant, or branch mismatch, the legal and procedural consequences follow specific steps:
## What Happens If a Case Is Filed in the Wrong Jurisdiction?
* Return of Complaint: The court where the case was wrongly filed will not dismiss the underlying crime, but it will return the complaint to the complainant so that it can be presented in the proper court of competent jurisdiction (supported by Supreme Court rulings such as Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. M/s HEG Limited and Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. Jagruti Keyur Rajpopat). [2, 3]
* Objection by the Accused: The accused can raise a preliminary jurisdictional objection immediately upon receiving the summons, pointing out the mismatch between the deposit/home branch records and the court’s territorial limits. [4]
* No Elimination of Liability: Filing or returning a case due to a jurisdictional error does not wipe out the criminal liability under Section 138; the statutory notice of dishonour remains valid, and a fresh or transferred complaint can be re-filed in the correct court (subject to limitation and procedural rules). [3]
## Key Rules Under Section 142(2) NI Act
* If delivered through the payee’s account: Jurisdiction is where the branch of the payee’s bank where the account is maintained is situated. [1, 5]
* If presented directly through the drawer’s bank: Jurisdiction lies where the drawer’s bank branch is situated. [6]
* Bank/Collection Mismatch: If a bank misroutes or records the wrong branch information on deposit slips or return memos, the actual home branch records (account opening documentation) prevail over a convenient or mistaken collection branch. [1, 4]
More on 99888-17966
[1] [https://legalogic.com](https://legalogic.com/post/supreme-court-clarifies-jurisdiction-in-cheque-bounce-cases-home-branch-of-depositor-now-holds-the-key)
[2] [https://www.linkedin.com](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/evolving-law-territorial-jurisdiction-cheque-dishonour-gulshan-maurya-lzfpc)
[3] [https://www.scobserver.in](https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/jai-balaji-industries-v-m-s-heg18149/)
[4] [https://www.chequebouncelawyer.com](https://www.chequebouncelawyer.com/legal-services/territorial-jurisdiction-objections-in-cheque-bounce-cases/)
[5] [https://mahendrabhavsar.com](https://mahendrabhavsar.com/cheque-dishonour-jurisdiction-lies-where-payees-bank-is/)
[6] [https://www.amalegalsolutions.com](https://www.amalegalsolutions.com/cheque-bounce-case-jurisdiction)