Section 142A explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 142A deals with the case-management side of cheque-bounce jurisdiction. It validates transfers of pending cases made after the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 changed sub-section (2) of Section 142, sends later complaints against the same drawer to the same court, and brings together multiple pending prosecutions filed by the same payee. This follows the consolidated text consulted.
Sub-section (1) validates cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) "as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015", treating them as transferred under this Act as if that sub-section had always been in force. Sub-section (2) says that once a complaint against a drawer is pending in the court having jurisdiction, all subsequent complaints under Section 138 against the same drawer go to the same court, wherever the cheques were delivered or presented. Sub-section (3) says that where more than one prosecution by the same payee against the same drawer was pending in different courts on the commencement of the 2015 Amendment Act, the case is transferred to the court where the first case was filed and is pending.
Why this section is in the Act
Section 142(2) fixes the court by reference to the payee's account branch or the drawer's branch; see Section 142. The text of Section 142A refers to that sub-section "as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015" and to "the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015". The copy consulted states the position as of 26 December 2015 and names those two instruments, but it gives no date for the Ordinance or the Act beyond what is printed here, so this article gives none.
Because the section addresses pending cases, it matters mostly to a payee who has issued several cheques' worth of complaints against one drawer, and to a drawer facing them. If you are in that position and need advice on how the cases should be placed, our legal dispute resolution team can go through the file. The text refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; the reader should check the current procedural law for the corresponding provision. A note on spelling: the Act writes "indorse"; "endorse" is the common spelling.
Section 142A(1): validation of transfers
The text: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court, all cases transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Act, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times."
Key words:
- "Notwithstanding": the rule prevails over the Code and over any judgment, decree, order or direction of any court.
- "all cases transferred": it covers cases that were transferred to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) as amended by the Ordinance.
- "deemed to have been transferred under this Act": the transfer is treated as made under the Act itself.
- "as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times": the amended sub-section is treated as always having been in force.
Section 142A(2): later complaints go to the same court
The text: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of section 142 or sub-section (1), where the payee or the holder in due course, as the case may be, has filed a complaint against the drawer of a cheque in the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1) and such complaint is pending in that court, all subsequent complaints arising out of section 138 against the same drawer shall be filed before the same court irrespective of whether those cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within the territorial jurisdiction of that court."
Conditions for the rule:
- A payee or holder in due course has filed a complaint against the drawer in the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2), or the case has been transferred to that court under sub-section (1).
- That complaint is pending in that court.
Then all subsequent complaints under Section 138 against the same drawer "shall be filed before the same court". It does not matter whether the later cheques were delivered for collection or presented for payment within that court's territorial jurisdiction.
Section 142A(3): pending prosecutions in different courts
The text: "If, on the date of the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, more than one prosecution filed by the same payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, against the same drawer of cheques is pending before different courts, upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court, such court shall transfer the case to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, before which the first case was filed and is pending, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times."
Elements:
- On the commencement date of the 2015 Amendment Act, more than one prosecution by the same payee or holder in due course against the same drawer was pending before different courts.
- The fact is "brought to the notice of the court".
- The court "shall transfer" the case to the court having jurisdiction under Section 142(2) as amended, before which the first case was filed and is pending.
The words "upon the said fact having been brought to the notice of the court" mean the court acts once told. The text does not say who must bring it, or how.
At a glance
| Sub-section | Subject | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | Cases already transferred | Deemed transferred under this Act, as if the amended Section 142(2) had always been in force |
| (2) | Subsequent complaints against the same drawer | Filed before the same court, wherever the cheques were delivered or presented |
| (3) | Several prosecutions pending in different courts when the 2015 Amendment Act commenced | Transferred to the court where the first case was filed and is pending |
A worked example
Example. Gauri Distributors, which banks in Jaipur, files a complaint against Harsha Retail over one cheque in the court at Jaipur having jurisdiction under Section 142(2), and that complaint is pending. A few weeks later three more cheques of Harsha Retail are returned: one was delivered for collection through an account in Jaipur, one was presented at a branch in Lucknow, and one was deposited in Indore. Under sub-section (2) of Section 142A, all subsequent complaints under Section 138 against Harsha Retail are to be filed before the same Jaipur court, irrespective of where the cheques were delivered or presented. The earlier position, under sub-section (3), is similar for cases pending on the commencement date of the 2015 Amendment Act in different courts: the later case is transferred to the court where the first case was filed and is pending.
Points to watch
- Same payee and same drawer. Sub-section (3) speaks of the same payee or holder in due course and the same drawer. Sub-section (2) of the same drawer.
- "Pending". The rules operate while the first complaint is pending in that court.
- No new offences. Section 142A is about where cases are heard. It does not change the offence or its conditions in Section 138.
- Dates. The text names the 2015 Ordinance and the 2015 Amendment Act but gives no date for either; this article gives none.
- No procedure for the transfer. The text gives no form or steps.
Need help with several cheque cases?
If you have returned cheques against one drawer, or you are that drawer, the order in which complaints were filed decides where the later ones go. You can ask for a legal dispute resolution review of the cases and cheques, with the dates in front of you.
Key takeaways
- Section 142A(1) validates transfers to the court having jurisdiction under the amended Section 142(2).
- Section 142A(2) sends all later Section 138 complaints against the same drawer to the same court while the first complaint is pending there.
- Section 142A(3) brings multiple pending prosecutions by the same payee against the same drawer, pending in different courts at the 2015 Amendment Act's commencement, to the court of the first case.
- The text gives no dates for the 2015 Ordinance or Act.
- The text refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; check current procedural law.
Read next
- Section 142: cognizance of cheque bounce offence and court jurisdiction
- Section 143: summary trial of cheque bounce cases
- Section 138: cheque bounce (dishonour of cheque)
- Interim compensation under Section 143A
Disclaimer: Based on a consolidated text of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stating the position as of 26 December 2015 and on the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, as consulted on 2 October 2026. Later amendments and current criminal procedure law should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.