Technicality Cannot Trump Substantive Justice—Proceedings Under NI Act Can’t Be Dismissed on Jurisdictional Misreading: Calcutta High Court Restores Dishonour Case After Trial Delay

When Accused Has Appeared and Pleaded Not Guilty, Court Must Proceed—Jurisdiction Objections Must Not Derail Cheque Dishonour Trials: Calcutta High Court allowed a criminal revision, holding that the refusal by the ACJM, Bidhannagar, to proceed with a Section 138 NI Act complaint was based on a misinterpretation of the law, particularly the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore. The Court ruled that once the accused had appeared, pleaded not guilty, and the matter was fixed for evidence, the complaint could not be rejected merely for want of territorial jurisdiction. 
 Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das ruled: “The learned court failed to interpret the Apex Court’s decision in Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore correctly. When the accused has appeared and the case has progressed beyond issuance of process, the court must proceed.” 
“Cheque Bounced, Notice Sent, Accused Appeared and Pleaded Not Guilty—Case Had Progressed Beyond Preliminary Stage” 
The cheque in question—dated 09 July 2012 for ₹7,66,751.30—was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After serving a statutory notice, the complainant company filed its case under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ACJM, Bidhannagar took cognizance, issued summons, and the accused appeared on 21 December 2012, pleading “not guilty” under Section 251 CrPC. 
The complainant’s affidavit-in-chief was filed on 03 September 2014. However, following the Supreme Court’s Dasharath judgment, the case was returned by the Magistrate on 16 December 2014, with a direction to file it in the court having jurisdiction over the drawee bank’s location. 
 “Dasharath Judgment Was Misunderstood—Once Trial Has Reached Stage of Section 145(2) NI Act, Case Need Not Be Transferred” 
The Magistrate cited Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 9 SCC 129], holding that the case was still at the pre-evidence stage and thus had to be filed before the court within the drawee bank’s jurisdiction. However, the High Court held that this was an incorrect reading, as Dasharath clearly provided that cases which had reached the stage of recording evidence under Section 145(2) should continue in the same court. 
Justice Das emphasized: “Merely leading evidence at pre-summoning stage does not exclude Dasharath’s applicability. But when accused has appeared, pleaded not guilty, and the matter is fixed for evidence,  the case has crossed that threshold.” 
“Section 145 NI Act Is Procedural—Once Summons Served and Plea Taken, Case Should Proceed on Merits
The Court cited Indian Bank Association v. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 590], which laid down procedural clarity for cheque dishonour cases. Once the accused pleads not guilty and does not settle the matter, the trial should proceed swiftly with day-to-day hearing. 
 The Court observed: “The procedural requirement under Section 145 is meant to expedite, not obstruct trial. The lower court lost sight of the fact that the trial had matured beyond initial stages. Justice must not be sacrificed to jurisdictional hyper-technicality.” 
“Magistrate Cannot Rely on Dasharath Without Recognising Exceptions—Arambag Court Had Rightly Accepted Jurisdiction” 
The complainant, after the case was returned by Bidhannagar Court, had refiled it in Arambag Court, where it was accepted. But later, that too was refused. Ultimately, the complainant was left remedyless due to conflicting views by subordinate courts. 
 The High Court called out this inconsistency: “Neither the Bidhannagar nor the Arambag court discussed the real stage of trial. Both failed to assess whether the matter had reached Section 145(2). Such procedural confusion cannot be allowed to prejudice the complainant.” 
Final Judgment: Revision Allowed, Bidhannagar ACJM Directed to Proceed with Trial Expeditiously The High Court allowed the revision, declared that the ACJM, Bidhannagar, has jurisdiction, and directed the court to proceed with the case without further delay, considering it at a mature trial stage. 
The Court concluded: “The case shall proceed as per law. The learned Magistrate shall not be swayed by prior orders based on a misreading of Dasharath. The complaint was rightly filed, and proceedings must now continue.” 
This ruling reasserts that strict procedural readings under Section 138 NI Act must not impede substantial justice, particularly when accused persons have already appeared, and trial has begun. The Calcutta High Court has clarified that trial courts must assess the true stage of proceedings before returning complaints on jurisdictional grounds, especially in post-Dasharath jurisprudence. 
As the Court aptly stated:  “Litigants must not be punished for legal uncertainty—especially when the system itself is unclear. Trial must proceed where it was maturing.” 

Date of Decision: 26 March 2025