Which Court to File a Cheque Bounce (Section 138) Complaint in India (2026): Territorial Jurisdiction After the 2015 Amendment
A cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed in the court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee (the person who received and deposited the cheque) maintains the account is situated — not where the drawer's bank is, and not where the cheque was handed over or signed. This rule comes from Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act, inserted by the 2015 amendment, and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75, and most recently in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. HEG Ltd., 2025 INSC 1362.
In practical terms: deposit the cheque, let it bounce, and file your complaint in the magistrate's court that covers your own bank branch. Filing in the wrong court is the single most common technical defect that gets a cheque bounce complaint returned or dismissed — so this one question is worth getting right before you draft a line.
The short answer: file where the payee's account branch sits
For an account-payee cheque deposited for collection, the court with jurisdiction is the one covering the branch of the payee's (complainant's) bank where that account is maintained.
That is the default for almost every modern cheque dishonour case, because cheques are now routed electronically (CTS clearing) and almost always deposited into the payee's own account. Section 142(2) actually has two limbs:
| Situation | Which court has jurisdiction | Provision |
|---|---|---|
| Cheque delivered for collection through an account (the normal case) | Court where the payee's / holder-in-due-course's bank branch is situated | Section 142(2)(a) |
| Cheque presented for payment otherwise than through an account (e.g. cash counter / bearer) | Court where the drawer's bank branch (the drawee bank on which the cheque is drawn) is situated | Section 142(2)(b) |
The Explanation to Section 142(2) adds a deeming rule: where a cheque is delivered to any branch of the payee's bank for collection, the account branch — the payee's "home branch" — is treated as the place of collection. So you cannot manufacture jurisdiction by walking into a convenient branch in another city; the law looks to where your account actually lives.
How the law got here: Dashrath Rupsingh (2014) → the 2015 amendment → Bridgestone (2015)
The rule above is not obvious, because it was the opposite of the law for a brief period. Understanding the switch helps you argue jurisdiction confidently.
- Before 2014 — the "five places" test: In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510, the Supreme Court held that any of up to five places connected to the transaction could try the case (where the cheque was drawn, presented, returned, where the demand notice was issued, and where the drawer failed to pay). This gave payees wide choice.
- 2014 — Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod: In Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129, a three-judge bench narrowed this sharply, holding that only the court where the drawer's bank (the drawee bank that dishonoured the cheque) is located had jurisdiction. This forced thousands of payees to re-file far from home, and pending complaints were ordered transferred.
- 2015 — Parliament reverses it: Reacting to the hardship, Parliament inserted Sections 142(2) and 142A through the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015 (Act 26 of 2015, effective 15 June 2015, originally through ordinances), restoring jurisdiction to the payee's bank branch.
- 2015 — Bridgestone v. Inderpal Singh: On 24 November 2015, in Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh Madan, (2016) 2 SCC 75, the Supreme Court held that the amendment operates retrospectively (Section 142A uses the words "as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times"), so Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod no longer governs territorial jurisdiction.
In one line: since the 2015 amendment, and as confirmed in 2016, jurisdiction follows the payee, not the drawer.
Does it still hold in 2026? Yes — reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year
The position has been reaffirmed twice by the Supreme Court in 2025. In M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., 2025 INSC 328 (decided 6 March 2025), the Court applied Section 142(2)(a) to uphold the complainant bank's chosen court (where its collection account was situated) and declined to transfer the case merely because the drawer found it inconvenient. More recently, in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. HEG Ltd., 2025 INSC 1362, the Court restated that jurisdiction to try a Section 138 complaint for an account-payee cheque vests in the court within whose local limits the payee's home branch is situated. So the rule you rely on today is current law, not a dated 2015 proposition.
What this means before you file — the next questions that actually decide your case
1. Section 177 BNSS / CrPC venue rules do NOT apply
The general criminal venue rule (offence tried where it was committed) is displaced for Section 138 by the special, self-contained scheme in Sections 142–142A. You do not need to show the "offence" occurred in your city — the deeming provision does the work. Section 142(1) opens with a non obstante clause ("Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure").
2. Which level of court — and can it be transferred?
The complaint must be tried by a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Section 142(1)(c)). A drawer who genuinely cannot defend across the country can still seek transfer under Section 446 of the BNSS, 2023 (the successor to Section 406 CrPC) — but, as Sendhur Agro shows, mere inconvenience is rarely enough; the court balances the statutory jurisdiction against real hardship.
3. Don't lose the case on timing while fixing the court
Territorial jurisdiction is useless if you miss the limitation window. The Section 138 timeline is strict: - Present the cheque within its validity (banks honour cheques for 3 months from the date of the instrument, per RBI directions). - Send a written demand notice within 30 days of receiving the bank's dishonour memo. - The drawer gets 15 days to pay. - File the complaint within 30 days of the end of that 15-day period (Section 142(1)(b)). A delayed complaint can be condoned only on sufficient cause shown.
Get the demand notice right — a defective notice sinks the complaint regardless of which court you pick. See our detailed guide on how to send a Section 138 cheque bounce demand notice without fatal service defects, and, if the drawer dodges the notice, how to prove service of a Section 138 notice when it comes back unclaimed or refused.
4. What documents prove jurisdiction?
To satisfy the court of its own jurisdiction, keep and exhibit: the dishonoured cheque, the bank's return/dishonour memo, your bank passbook or account statement showing the account branch (this is the jurisdictional anchor under 142(2)(a)), the demand notice with proof of dispatch and service, and the drawer's reply or silence. The account statement is what ties the case to your branch's court.
5. Can you recover money too, or only punish the drawer?
Section 138 is a criminal complaint, but the court can order compensation. While the case is pending, you can apply for interim compensation of up to 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A of the NI Act — a significant lever most juniors forget. Read our explainer on interim compensation under Section 143A in a cheque bounce case.
A worked example
Suppose you are based in Kochi, you received a cheque from a Delhi businessman, and you deposited it into your current account at a bank branch in Ernakulam. The cheque bounced. You file your Section 138 complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Ernakulam — the court covering your account branch — even though the drawer and his bank are in Delhi. If instead you had presented a bearer cheque across the counter at the drawer's Delhi branch (no collection account involved), jurisdiction would lie in Delhi under Section 142(2)(b). The deciding fact is how and where the cheque entered the banking system, not where it was signed or handed over.
Frequently Asked Questions
In a cheque bounce case, which court do we have to file in?
File in the Judicial Magistrate First Class (or Metropolitan Magistrate) court within whose local jurisdiction the branch of your bank — the payee's bank where you deposited the cheque for collection — is situated. This is the rule under Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act after the 2015 amendment, confirmed in Bridgestone v. Inderpal Singh, (2016) 2 SCC 75.
Can I file a cheque bounce case in my own city if the drawer lives in another state?
Yes, in almost every case. Because you deposit the cheque into your own account, jurisdiction follows your bank branch under Section 142(2)(a). The drawer's location is irrelevant; he can be summoned to your city's court. Only a bearer/counter-presented cheque (no account) shifts jurisdiction to the drawer's bank branch under Section 142(2)(b).
Is the old Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod rule still good law?
No. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod (2014), which fixed jurisdiction at the drawer's bank, was overtaken by the 2015 amendment (Sections 142(2) and 142A). The Supreme Court in Bridgestone v. Inderpal Singh held the amendment retrospective, and 2025 rulings such as Jai Balaji Industries v. HEG Ltd. reaffirm the payee-branch rule.
What if I filed in the wrong court?
Under Section 142A, pending complaints are transferred to the court having jurisdiction under the new scheme rather than dismissed outright, and a related complaint on the same transaction must be tried together there. But a wrong filing wastes months — verify your account branch's court before filing, and keep your bank statement ready as the jurisdictional proof.
How long do I have to file after the cheque bounces?
After the bank's dishonour memo, send a written demand notice within 30 days; the drawer has 15 days to pay; if he does not, file the complaint within 30 days of that 15-day period expiring (Section 142(1)(b)). Missing this window needs a condonation-of-delay application showing sufficient cause.
Which magistrate level tries a Section 138 case?
A Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, as set out in Section 142(1)(c) of the NI Act. These are summons-triable complaints initiated by the payee's written complaint, not by an FIR.
How Urava helps
Getting territorial jurisdiction right is exactly the kind of procedural trap that costs juniors and litigants months. Urava turns a plain question — "which court do I file my cheque bounce case in?" — into a court-ready, citation-backed research memo in about 10 minutes, with the governing section (142(2)(a)), the controlling judgments (Bridgestone, Jai Balaji), and the limitation timeline laid out and verified against primary sources — so you are not relying on a half-remembered blog. You can even scan a Malayalam or Hindi demand notice or dishonour memo and get an English memo back. Start free with three researches at urava.app/register.