-
by sayum
17 April 2026 1:44 PM
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has dismissed a petition that sought the transfer of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act from Fazilka to Chandigarh, citing the need for factual evidence to resolve the jurisdiction based on the complainant’s bank account location.
The dispute involves a bounced cheque issued by Sumesh Sharma and others, accused of defrauding Guravtar Singh Grewal and another party. The petitioners argued that since the cheque was issued from a bank account allegedly based in Chandigarh, the trial should also be conducted there. However, the respondents produced evidence suggesting that the account was indeed maintained in Fazilka.
Location of Bank Account: Both parties presented conflicting information about where the bank account was maintained. The petitioners claimed it was Chandigarh, while the respondents showed a certificate from Canara Bank indicating Fazilka.
Jurisdictional Concerns: Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill elaborated on the complexities involved in determining the jurisdiction, stating, “The issue whether the bank account continued at Muthianwali Branch, Fazilka or was permanently moved to Chandigarh is a factual matter needing detailed evidence.”
Legal Procedure on Jurisdiction: The judgment highlighted the procedural appropriateness of addressing jurisdictional facts at trial rather than during a transfer petition, promoting a thorough examination of evidence by the trial court.
Decision: The court concluded that the jurisdiction issue should be raised and decided at the trial court, which would allow a comprehensive evaluation of evidence regarding the location of the bank account. The petition for transfer was thus disposed of, with directions to the trial court to tackle the jurisdictional question at an early stage of the proceedings.
Date of Decision: May 1, 2024
Sumesh Sharma & others vs. Guravtar Singh Grewal & another
