M/S Kamal Enterprises & Anr. vs. A.K. Constructions Co., 2024

• The petitioners in this case are the accused in complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
• The petitioners challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court where the complaints were filed, arguing that the court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the case.

• Whether the Trial Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, and if not, whether the complaints should be transferred to the appropriate court?
• Whether territorial jurisdiction can be considered a valid ground for transferring the complaint from one court to another?

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that:

• The lack of territorial jurisdiction is a matter that can be addressed by the Trial Court itself, not necessarily a ground for transfer in these petitions.
• The Magistrate is empowered to take the necessary steps if jurisdiction is found to be lacking, including returning the complaint for presentation to the appropriate court.
• The petitioners can apply to the Trial Court for exemption from personal appearance under specific conditions. If granted, they need only appear when required by the court.
• Since the issue of territorial jurisdiction can be raised directly before the Magistrate, and the process to address it is available, the Transfer Petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

• The Court observed that the petitioners, being the accused, could raise the issue of territorial jurisdiction before the Magistrate.
• The Magistrate has the authority to return the complaint if it is found that the court lacks territorial jurisdiction, allowing the complaint to be presented to the proper court.