Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed transfer petitions filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Yogesh Upadhyay and his proprietary concern, M/s. Shakti Buildcon, seeking transfer of two complaint cases pending in Nagpur, Maharashtra, to New Delhi to be tried alongside four other cases. All six cases were initiated by Atlanta Limited under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonoured cheques issued for the purchase of a crusher plant. The cheques were dishonoured due to stop payment instructions, with the first two presented at Nagpur and the remaining four at New Delhi. The petitioners argued for joint trial as all cheques related to the same transaction, while the respondent contended that Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with its non obstante clause, overrode Section 406 Cr.P.C., granting exclusive jurisdiction to Nagpur courts under Section 142(2). The court analyzed the legal framework, noting that Section 142(2), inserted via the 2015 amendment, vests jurisdiction in the court where the cheque is delivered for collection, aligning with post-amendment jurisprudence. It held that the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) pertains solely to cognizance procedures and does not abrogate the Supreme Court's transfer powers under Section 406 Cr.P.C., citing precedent where transfers were allowed for similar offences. Emphasizing expediency for justice, the court found that since all cases stemmed from one transaction, transfer to New Delhi would prevent contradictory findings and facilitate convenience. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the Nagpur cases were transferred to New Delhi for joint trial.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Cases - Section 406 Cr.P.C. - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Sections 138, 142 - Non Obstante Clause Interpretation - Petitioners sought transfer of cheque dishonour cases from Nagpur to New Delhi for joint trial with other cases from same transaction - Court held that non obstante clause in Section 142(1) does not exclude Section 406 Cr.P.C., as it pertains only to cognizance procedure, not transfer powers - Transfer power remains intact for offences under Section 138 if expedient for justice (Paras 13-15). B) Negotiable Instruments Law - Cheque Dishonour Jurisdiction - Sections 138, 142 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Territorial Jurisdiction Under Amended Act - Respondent contended Nagpur courts had exclusive jurisdiction under Section 142(2) for cheques presented there - Court noted Section 142(2) vests jurisdiction in court where cheque is delivered for collection, as per amendment post-Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod - Institution at Nagpur was proper under current law (Paras 9-12). C) Criminal Law - Transfer of Proceedings - Section 406 Cr.P.C. - Expediency and Justice - Common Adjudication - Six complaint cases arose from single transaction for purchase of crusher plant - Court found transfer to New Delhi advisable to avoid contradictory findings and for convenience of parties and witnesses - Held transfer expedient for ends of justice (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the non obstante clause in Section 142(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 overrides Section 406 Cr.P.C., thereby prohibiting transfer of complaint cases under Section 138 of the Act, and whether transfer is appropriate for cases arising from the same transaction
Final Decision
The transfer petitions are allowed. SCC Nos.25668/2019 and 26875/2019 pending before the learned 22nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, and the learned 20th Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, respectively, are transferred to the South West District Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi, to be tried along with Complaint Case Nos. 42489/2019, 1464/2020, 7596/2020 and 4094/2020.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Section 142(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 vests exclusively in court where cheque is delivered for collection
- Transfer power under Section 406 Cr.P.C. remains intact for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 notwithstanding non obstante clause in Section 142(1)
- Common adjudication of cases arising from same transaction is expedient for ends of justice
