The Supreme Court of India said that a case of dishonored check must be filed in the same place as the complainant’s bank account, not where the check was actually presented.
This story is based on a real Supreme Court of India decision from 2025 that tells the story of a businessman who had to fight the law because of a mistake that almost stopped him from getting justice.
A loan, a promise, and four bounced checks started a courtroom drama that spread to two cities.
The Tale
A businessman ran a small finance business in the port city of Mangalore. In 2023, he gave money to a woman whose husband was in debt. She became the guarantor, which meant that she promised to pay back the loan if her husband didn’t. She wrote four post-dated checks to make sure she would keep her word.
These checks were more than just paper for the businessman. They were a promise. A promise that his money was safe.
He put the checks at Kotak Mahindra Bank’s Opera House Branch in Mumbai so they could be picked up. But his account was at the Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore. He, like many other customers, used the bank’s internal clearing system, which he thought would credit his local account.
But the call came on September 15, 2023. The checks didn’t go through. The reason: not enough money.
What to Know
The businessman, who was shaken, filed four criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act) with the Judicial Magistrate Court in Mangalore.
It is against the law to write a check that bounces because there isn’t enough money in the account.
Section 200 Cr.P.C. lets people file complaints directly with a magistrate.
His four complaints, which were numbered 1258, 1259, 1260, and 1261 of 2023, made the dishonor very clear.
But the magistrate threw them out on December 12, 2023. Why? No territorial jurisdiction.
The magistrate said that the case had to be filed in Mumbai because the checks were presented there.
The businessman was shocked. His account was in Mangalore, not Mumbai. He had only sent the checks to Mumbai to be cleared, which is a normal step in banking. How could a technical mistake ruin his case?
Problem
He was determined to go to the High Court of Karnataka under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which lets High Courts fix mistakes and stop unfairness.
But the High Court agreed with the magistrate on March 5, 2024. It also wrongly thought that his account was at the Opera House Branch in Mumbai.
It was a huge blow. Both courts had gotten the facts wrong, and it seemed like justice was out of reach.
He had no other choice but to go to the Supreme Court of India.
The Law Question
The Supreme Court had to answer an important question:
👉 If the complainant’s account is in one city and the cheque is deposited in another, where should the case be filed?
It wasn’t just about one business owner. This question is at the heart of thousands of cheque dishonour cases in India.
Regulation
The answer was found in Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was changed in 2015.
It says:
The payee’s bank branch is where the complaint must be filed under Section 138. This is the branch where the complainant has their account.
This change was made to protect payees so they wouldn’t have to go from city to city to get their money.
In Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh (2016), the Supreme Court said that jurisdiction is at the payee’s bank branch, not where the payment is made.
Points of view
The lawyer for the businessman made it clear:
His account number (0412108431) was with Kotak Mahindra’s Bendurwell Branch in Mangalore.
A letter from the bank confirmed this.
The Mumbai branch was just a place to pick things up.
The woman’s lawyer said that the businessman had once had an account in Mumbai, but he had moved it to Mangalore before the checks were cashed.
There was no doubt about the facts: his operative account was in Mangalore.
The woman’s side still wanted Mumbai, saying that dishonor happened there. But the court said that the 2015 change had already settled this. The payee’s bank branch decides who has jurisdiction.
Judgment
The Supreme Court made things right on July 23, 2025.
It overturned the magistrate’s order from December 12, 2023.
It changed the High Court’s decision from March 5, 2024.
It sent the businessman’s complaints back to the Fifth Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Mangalore.
The magistrate was told to listen to them quickly.
It was clear what the ruling was:
👉 A cheque dishonour case must be filed where the complainant’s bank account is kept, not where the cheque is deposited.
In conclusion
It was more than a technical win for the businessman. It was justice that was restored. He did everything right: he trusted the checks, filed his case correctly, and kept going with his appeals even when things went wrong. The lower courts got the law wrong, but the Supreme Court fixed it.
This decision is a protection for some people. It means that regular people can’t be taken to courts far away just because checks were given somewhere else. Justice should not be a burden; it should be easy to get.
This story is based on a real decision made by the Supreme Court of India in 2025.
Questions and Answers
If the check is deposited in a different city, where should a case for dishonoring it be filed?
Under Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act, it must be filed where the complainant’s bank account is kept.
What does Section 138 of the N.I. Act say?
It’s against the law to write a check that bounces because there isn’t enough money in the account.
Why did the magistrate and High Court turn down the case?
They thought the complainant’s story was in Mumbai instead of Mangalore.
What made the Supreme Court step in?
To fix the wrong interpretation and support the 2015 change that made jurisdiction clearer.
What will happen next in this case?
The complaints will be heard in Mangalore, which is where the businessman’s account is.
What was the significance of the 2015 change?
It made cheque dishonour cases easier by making sure that the payee’s account is in the right place, which made things less difficult.
Disclaimer
This blog is only for public information and does not give legal advice.
About the Author
Advocate High Court Jehangir Badar wrote this.
I am a corporate lawyer and the founder of Verdict Tales.
