SC enable to transfer of cheque cases interstate: 406 Cr.Pc

Last Updated on February 23, 2023 by Administrator

Written By – Shianjany Pradhan

A company has filed 4 out of the 6 six cases in the court of Dwarka and the rest two are still pending in Nagpur court in Maharashtra, the petitioner in the case who are allegedly the accused too has moved the petition in front of the court for the transfer of the cases from Nagpur to Dwarka

The supreme court observed that it also holds the power as per section 406 of the c.r.p.c to transfer the cases pertaining to the cheques from one state to the other. The non-obstante clause as mentioned in section 142(1) of the negotiable instruments act does not act as a hindrance to the power of the supreme court under 406 of the c.r.p.c.

This is righteous when it comes to the matter pertaining to the offenses as mentioned in section 138 of the NI Act, as it would accomplish the goal of the legal system which is meeting the ends of Justice. This was told by Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar.

On the other hand, the respondents who are the complainants in the case have opposed this step of the petitioner. They claimed that the non-obstante clause mentioned in section 142(1) of the NI Act, would have an overriding effect over section 406 of the c.r.p.c  

The phrase used in the section “shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction… “as written in section `142(1)  is contextual to the principle that has been given in the judgment of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another

The court said that the non-obstante clause was mentioned in the original section 142 and the same has not been introduced through the amendments in the year 2015. The clause merely makes a reference to the procedure or the way in which the cognizance of such a case is to be taken for the offenses under section 138 of the NI Act. 

It is important for the clause to be read and understood in not a narrow manner but a contextual manner, whereby the interpretation that section 142 of the act would have an overriding effect over section 406 of the c.r.p.c is wrong. The court highlighted the purposive interpretation of the said section.

Case Title: – Yogesh Upadhyay vs Atlanta Limited

Related Provisions:-  Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code.