S. 224 BNSS | Magistrate Without Cognisance Power Must Return Complaint To Jurisdictional Court | Orissa High Court Says Transfer Not Maintainable From Court Lacking Jurisdiction
- Post By 24law
- August 8, 2025

Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra dismissed a petition seeking transfer of proceedings in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petition, filed under Section 447 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Surakhya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), sought transfer of the complaint from the Court of JMFC-II, Cuttack to the Court of JMFC-IV, Bhubaneswar. The Court concluded that the application for transfer was procedurally inappropriate and directed the complainant to seek return of the complaint under Section 224(a) of the BNSS.
Justice Mishra held that the appropriate remedy was not a transfer petition under Section 447 of the BNSS, but an application before the Magistrate who received the complaint to return the same for filing before the competent court. The Court clarified that the magistrate in charge of the JMFC-II Court must return the complaint with an appropriate endorsement if approached by the complainant.
The petitioner, who is the complainant in 1CC Case No. 172 of 2024 pending before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Cuttack, filed a transfer petition under Section 447 of the BNSS. The petition requested the High Court to transfer the matter to the Court of learned JMFC-IV, Bhubaneswar. The cause of action arose from the dishonour of a cheque issued by the accused, drawn on IndusInd Bank, Cuttack Chandi Road Branch, Cuttack. The complainant deposited the cheque in his bank account at IndusInd Bank, Lewis Road Branch, Bhubaneswar.
The cheque was dishonoured with a memo dated 23.10.2024, stating the reason as "Drawer's signature not as per mandate in the account." Although the complaint was filed in the Cuttack court, the petitioner argued that the proper jurisdiction lay in Bhubaneswar, where his bank is located. He contended that the complaint was erroneously filed in Cuttack due to advice from his legal counsel.
The petitioner further submitted that the Court of JMFC-II, Cuttack, is currently without a permanent presiding officer as the post is vacant. The charge has been handed over to the PO, JMFC-III, Cuttack. According to the petitioner, the in-charge magistrate does not have the authority to transfer the case to a court with proper jurisdiction. He asserted that filing a fresh complaint at Bhubaneswar may attract limitation issues under Section 142(1)(b) of the N.I. Act.
In this context, the petitioner prayed for an order from the High Court directing the JMFC-II Court to transfer the record to JMFC-IV, Bhubaneswar, as the competent court to try the case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court quoted Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, stating: "The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a Court within whose local jurisdiction,—
(a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated; or
(b) if the cheque is presented for payment by the payee or holder in due course, otherwise through an account, the branch of the drawee bank where the drawer maintains the account, is situated."
The Court explained: "It is amply clear from Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act that, when a cheque is delivered for collection to the payee’s bank account, the relevant jurisdiction for filing a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act would be where the payee’s bank branch, where the account is maintained, is situated."
Regarding the filing in Cuttack, the Court noted:"It appears from the record that the Petitioner, who is the payee of the cheque, which has been dishonoured, has wrongly instituted the said Complaint Case at Cuttack in the Court of learned JMFC-II, Cuttack, who is incompetent to take cognizance..."
The Court also considered a Supreme Court precedent: "In a recent judgment in M/s Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,... the Supreme Court held that an order of transfer of trial is not to be passed as a matter of routine... The power to transfer proceeding has to be exercised cautiously and in exceptional situations..."
Turning to the applicable procedural law, the Court referenced Section 224 of the BNSS: "If a complaint is made to a Magistrate, who is not competent to take cognizance of an offence, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for prosecution before the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect."
It recorded: "This Court is of the view that the present Petitioner, who is the Complainant in 1CC Case No.172 of 2024, instead of filing an application under Section 447 of BNSS... should have moved appropriate application before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Cuttack for return of the complaint..."
The judgment also cited a Supreme Court judgement in Canbank Financial Services Vs. Pallav Sheth: "Once the Court comes to a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint, by virtue of Section 201 of Cr.P.C., the complaint should be returned to the complainant, to be presented in the proper Court having jurisdiction..."
Justice Mishra issued clear directions regarding the procedure to be followed:
"The Petitioner, who is the complainant in 1CC Case No.172 of 2024, may move an application before the Court of learned JMFC-II, Cuttack in 1CC Case No.172 of 2024 for return of the complaint enabling him to file the same before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction at Bhubaneswar."
The Court mandated that if such an application is made: "The learned JMFC-II, Cuttack or the Magistrate, who is in charge of the said Court, shall do well to return the complaint to the Petitioner-Complainant forthwith with proper endorsement, in terms of provision enshrined under section 224(a) of the BNSS..."
It concluded with: "With the above observation, the transfer petition stands disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. H.S. Mishra, Advocate; Mrs. R. Nayak, Advocate
Case Title: Sangram Keshari Routray vs. Hexagon Infrastructures Private Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: TRPCRL No. 58 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra