JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/bank. 2. The petitioner invoking the powers under Section 407 Cr.P.C. is seeking the transfer of NI case No. 334 c/2023, pending in the court of learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Guwahati to the court at Silchar, Cachar, where the petitioner stated to be staying, also having his bank account. 3. The respondent/complainant is the State Bank of India through its Stressed Assets Recovery Branch (SARB) , Guwahati represented by its Chief manager. 4. In a short compass, the facts are that the petitioner, as the Managing Director of a firm/concern namely, M/s Asom Pyrolysis Pvt. Ltd., took cash credit limit of Rs. 55 lakhs and a term limit of Rs. 46 lakhs from the State Bank of India, Silchar, Cachar. It appears that due to alleged non- payment, the loan became NPA with regard to which an original application was moved by the bank before the DRT and during its pendency, the petitioner issued a cheque No. 946111 dated 31.10.2022 for Rs. 5 lakhs drawn on SBI, Arunachal, Silchar. The cheque came to be dishonored leading to a complaint giving rise to NI Case No. 334 c/2023. The return memo is dated 23.11.2022. The main contention of the petitioner is that the loan was taken from the State bank of India branch at Silchar and all documentation was done there. Moreover, the petitioner is also a resident of Silchar maintaining his bank account there. The petitioner also raised an issue of whether the cheque bouncing criminal proceeding should be maintained in the context of the DRT matter as well as a recovery proceeding initiated by the bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002. 5. Heard Mr. T.A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, who supporting his petition and his grounds, strenuously submits that the petitioner has good and justified grounds for seeking the transfer and that the respondent/complaint, being a large corporate organization would not suffer any prejudice. It is also contended and submitted that the State Bank of India has a presence at Silchar, and therefore, such a transfer will not cause any difficulties for the complainant bank. It is also contended and submitted that the State Bank of India has a presence at Silchar, and therefore, such a transfer will not cause any difficulties for the complainant bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that a trial at Guwahati might cause prejudice, thereby affecting his constitutionally enshrined right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, he has referred to a case law - K. Anbazhagan vs. Superintendent of Police & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 767 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under- “30. Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and not free from bias, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake shaking the confidence of the public in the system and woe would be the rule of law. It is important to note that in such a case the question is not whether the petitioner is actually biased but the question is whether the circumstances are such that there is a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner. In the present case, the circumstances as recited above are such as to create reasonable apprehension in the minds of the public at large in general and the petitioner in particular that there is every likelihood of failure of justice….” 6. Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the complainant/bank drawing attention to the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the complainant bank. The learned counsel has contended that this proceeding has no merit and was filed to delay the matter. He submitted that the cheque in question was presented in the branch of the complainant pertaining to stress assets like the bad loan of the petitioner, and therefore, the complaint filed at Guwahati was done so in its natural territorial jurisdiction. It is also stated and submitted that though the bank has a presence at Silchar but the bad loan is being handled by the specific department at the New Guwahati branch and that it would be prejudicial to the complainant to prosecute the case at Silchar. 7. I have perused the materials pleadings and the submissions from both the sides. It is also stated and submitted that though the bank has a presence at Silchar but the bad loan is being handled by the specific department at the New Guwahati branch and that it would be prejudicial to the complainant to prosecute the case at Silchar. 7. I have perused the materials pleadings and the submissions from both the sides. Before proceeding further reference may be made to section 142 (2)(a), which says that :- “(2) The offence under section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction,- (a) if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account, the branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, is situated.” 8. Thus, in a cheque proceeding under Section 138 NI Act - for an account payee cheque drawn up in a bank account, the complaint can be filed at a jurisdiction where the payee maintains the account. In other words, the place pertaining to the branch where such account payee cheque comes to be dishonored. As already stated in this case, the cheque was drawn up on the New Guwahati branch which handles such stressed assets (bad loans) and therefore, the complaint was filed in the natural territorial jurisdiction pertaining to the matter and as laid down in the aforesaid statutory provision. 9. It is well settled that mere inconvenience of the parties, though might be a relevant factor, would not be sufficient to exercise transfer jurisdiction. Doing so without wise judicial discretion would amount to significantly diluting the jurisprudence pertaining to territorial jurisdictions, which is never the object of the transfer jurisdiction incorporated in the statute. The same is only to facilitate such transfers vis-a-vis deserving situations. For example, a litigant may be facing a genuine threat to his life and safety, or litigants, especially a female litigant in a matrimonial/maintenance/custody matter, might be facing a genuine difficulty on account of financial distress. These are some of the situations in which the exercise of transfer jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner seeking such a transfer has been approved and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. 10. These are some of the situations in which the exercise of transfer jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner seeking such a transfer has been approved and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decisions. 10. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, the loan was taken at Silchar, but due to the subsequent developments, the matter came into the jurisdiction of the specialized department at New Guwahati and consequent criminal proceedings filed in Guwahati. Moreover, the cheque having bounced at the said branch, the present court is the natural jurisdiction for filing the complaint as already stated above. 11. Lastly, I do not find sufficient force in the contention that merely because the petitioner is residing at Silchar or having an account there, or the original loan was taken from the SBI Branch at Silchar, - NI Act proceedings should be transferred there. This does not in my considered opinion make out sufficient reasons for the transfer. The nature of the relationship between the complainant and the petitioner giving rise to this cheque bouncing case is different from some other matters like family laws. 12. I have also given my consideration to the aspect of a fair trial submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the nature of the matter at hand and the reasons and grounds for seeking the transfer, I am also of the view that allowing the trial to proceed at this stage at the court in Guwahati, i.e. the court of natural territorial jurisdiction cannot be said to be violative of the right to a fair trial of the petitioner. Needless to say that during the trial, the petitioner as the accused, will be entitled to have all the statutory and constitutional safeguards pertaining to fair trial. 13. Consequently, I do not find sufficient merit in this transfer petition and the same stands dismissed and disposed of.