Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Mukesh Sharma vs Vinod Kumar Agrawal on 1 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.(S)11501 OF 2024)
MUKESH SHARMA APPELLANT
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.(S)11702 OF 2024)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Present Appeals have been filed
challenging the order dated 06th March 2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur, whereby the complaints
under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “NI Act”)
instituted by the appellant were transferred
from Bhilwara to Ajmer on the ground that a
charge sheet has been filed against the
appellant in Ajmer for the offences under
Sections 403 and 417 of the IPC in relation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2026.07.03
to the subject-matter of cheques in question.
14:56:56 IST
Reason:
1
3. A perusal of the paper book reveals that
vide order dated 20th August 2024, the
predecessor Bench had issued notice and
stayed the impugned order passed by the High
Court. The paper book further reveals that
despite completion of service, no one has
appeared or filed Vakalatnama on behalf of
the respondent. Consequently, this Court has
no option but to proceed with the hearing of
the present appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that it is settled law that the Court
within whose jurisdiction the branch of the
bank where the payee maintains the account is
situated, will have jurisdiction to try the
offence if the cheque is delivered for
collection through an account. He states that
the cause of action in the present case arose
in Bhilwara since appellant maintains his
bank account in Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Bhilwara. He further points out that though
trial had commenced in the appellant’s
complaint way back in 2019, the Transfer
Petitions had been filed in the year 2022.
2
5. This Court finds that a coordinate Bench
in Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. v. M/s HEG Ltd.
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2581 has held that the
jurisdiction to try a complaint filed under
Section 138 of the NI Act in respect of a
cheque delivered for connection through an
account, i.e., an account payee cheque, is
vested in the Court within whose local
jurisdiction the branch of the bank in which
the payee maintains the account. This Court
also finds that evidence has commenced in the
complaint filed by the appellant under
Section 138 of the NI Act way back in 2019.
Consequently, the jurisdiction vests in the
Court where the payee’s home branch, is
situated.
6. Accordingly, this Court is of the view
that the Courts in Bhilwara have the
exclusive jurisdiction to enquire into and
try the offences under Section 138 of NI Act
alleged to have been committed by the
appellant.
7. Therefore, the present appeals are
allowed and the order dated 06th March 2024
3
passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jodhpur is set aside.
………………………………………………………, J
(MANMOHAN)
…………………………………………………………, J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 01, 2026
4
ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.)
NO(S).11501/2024
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
06-03-2024 IN SBCRLMTP NO. 31/2022 PASSED BY THE HIGH
COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR]
MUKESH SHARMA PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL RESPONDENT(S)
IA NO. 179816/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
WITH
SLP(CRL) NO. 11702/2024 (II-D)
Date : 01-07-2026 These matters were called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Romil Pathak, Adv.
Mrs. Rashmi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aravind C., Adv.
Mrs. Neha Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Aryan Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Subramaniam S., Adv.
Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RLeave granted.
Appeals are allowed in terms of the signed
order, which is placed on file.
5
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)6
