LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Shri Sendhuragro And Oil Industries v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Transfer Petition · 2025 INSC 328Decided 6 Mar 2025
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 608 of 2024 (with connected transfer petitions Nos. 670, 761, 662, 977 and 850 of 2024)
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

A Coimbatore-based proprietary business had taken a loan from Kotak Mahindra Bank, with the loan, mortgage, and EMI deductions all connected to the bank's Coimbatore branch. When a cheque was dishonoured, however, the Bank filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a Chandigarh court, since that was where its cheque-collection branch was located. The petitioner sought to have the case transferred out of Chandigarh, citing the distance, language barrier, personal safety concerns, and the fact that none of the underlying transaction had occurred there.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court explained that Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (introduced by a 2015 amendment, enacted after an earlier Supreme Court ruling had caused jurisdictional confusion) fixes jurisdiction for a cheque-bounce case at the place where the cheque was presented for collection through the payee's own bank account, not where the loan was granted or the underlying transaction occurred. Since the Bank's Chandigarh branch was a valid collection point, the Chandigarh court had jurisdiction. The Court further held that mere inconvenience or hardship in travelling to a distant court does not meet the legal standard of being "expedient for the ends of justice" required to transfer a criminal case under Section 406 CrPC; the petitioner could instead seek exemption from personal appearance or permission to join proceedings online. The transfer petition and all connected petitions were dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

In cheque-dishonour cases, the criminal complaint can be validly filed wherever the payee's bank presents the cheque for collection, even if that is far from where the loan or transaction actually took place; personal inconvenience alone is not a valid ground to have such a case transferred to a more convenient court.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case