IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in that particular writ petition. The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts in each case.
2. Mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 226-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Writ jurisdiction-To quash FIR-Extent of jurisdiction-FIR registered at Shillong-Major portion of facts leading to registration of FIR took place at Mumbai -Major Portion of investigation of case under FIR has to be conducted at Mumbai itself-Mumbai High Court has jurisdiction to exercise power under Article 226 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C.-Investigation transferred to Mumbai Police for further investigation.
       Per K.T. Thomas, J.-
       The power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which "the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" and it is no matter that the seat of the authority concerned is outside the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court. (Para 6)
       We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another State or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therein. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in that particular writ petition. The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts in each case. (Para 12)
       In the present case, a large number of events have taken place at Bombay in respect of the allegations contained in the FIR registered at Shillong. If the averments in the writ petition are correct then the major portion of the facts which led to the registering of the FIR have taken place at Bombay. In the aforesaid situation it is almost impossible to hold that not even a part of the cause of action has arisen at Bombay so as to deprive the High Court of Bombay of total jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Even the very fact that major portion of the investigation of the case under the FIR has to be conducted at Bombay itself shows that the cause of action cannot escape from the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court. (Paras 13 & 14)
       Per D.P. Mohapatra, J.-
       The High Court failed to consider all the relevant facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court based its decision on the sole consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed for quashing the said complaint. The High Court did not also consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai Police. The High Court also did not take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter. On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court. (Para 39)
       Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the Judgment under challenge and dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the complaint lodged by M/s. J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong which is presently being investigated by the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, Shillong shall be transferred to the Mumbai Police for further investigation through its Economic Offences Wing, General Branch, CID, or any other branch as the competent authority of the Mumbai Police may decide in accordance with law. (Para 42)

Judgement Key Points

The legal issue primarily concerns the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, specifically in the context of criminal proceedings and the filing of FIRs across different states. The core principle is that a High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition depends on whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within its territorial limits (!) (!) .

The cause of action is understood as the set of facts that entitle a party to seek judicial relief, and it may arise wholly or partly within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court (!) (!) (!) (!) . It is not solely determined by the residence of the petitioner or the location where the FIR is registered but by the actual facts and events that give rise to the dispute or complaint (!) (!) .

In criminal cases, the place where the offence was committed is the primary factor in establishing jurisdiction, but this is interpreted broadly to include any part of the offence or related acts that occur within the territorial limits of a High Court (!) (!) (!) . The investigation process, even if conducted in a different state, does not alone establish a cause of action within that state's jurisdiction (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the law recognizes that police cooperation across states is permissible, and the mere fact that investigation or police action occurs outside a state's jurisdiction does not automatically negate the jurisdiction of a High Court where a part of the facts or offence originated or where the dispute has substantial links (!) (!) (!) .

In the context of civil or quasi-civil proceedings, such as disputes over shares or contractual agreements, the place where the relevant facts occurred—such as the location of the transaction or the registered office of the company—is significant in determining jurisdiction (!) (!) .

Overall, the jurisdictional test involves a factual analysis of where the material facts or events that form the basis of the claim or complaint took place, rather than solely where the FIR was lodged or where the residence of the parties is located (!) (!) (!) . The courts emphasize that jurisdiction should be exercised only if a substantial part of the cause of action or relevant facts are within the territorial limits of the High Court in question.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-I respectfully agree with the Judgment prepared by my learned brother Mohapatra, J. In view of the importance of the legal issue highlighted before us - regarding the extent of jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - I am tempted to add a few lines of my own for a further support to the conclusion reached by my learned brother.

2. As the facts of the case have been succinctly narrated by Mohapatra, J., I shall set out only the main issue involved. Whether the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to in respect of any step taken or to be taken pursuant to the FIR registered by the Shillong police in the State of Meghalaya. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench has observed thus :

"Petitioner cannot content that a part of the cause of action arose within the limits of this Court as Bombay Police sought to interrogate him. The investigation is not the cause of action. The investigation is only the consequence of the FIR filed by the 4th respondent before the Police authorities in Meghalaya. The Petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the said FIR where an investigation is extending to Bombay or any other State on the basis of the FIR filed in a different State. One cannot say that the part of cause of action has arisen wherever police goes for the purpose of investigation."

The Division Bench extracted the definition of High Court under Section 2(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code ) and stated that by the said definition the Code has clearly laid down that "every High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code only within the territory of the State unless it is extended by any law. The High Court is defined in the Code as the High Court for that State. Learned Judges then made the following observations :

"Merely for the reason that the High Court can exercise the power under Article 226, also to quash an FIR where no offence is disclosed, cannot be construed to have jurisdiction to be exercised outside the territory where no FIR is lodged. To hold so would be farfetched. The instance that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being questioned by Bombay Police is only as a part of investigation. Police of a particular State can very well seek the assistance of police of another State in the course of the investigation of a crime. It is permissible under Section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that any police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. Exercising this power, the Assam Police might have come to Bombay also and sought aid of Bombay Police. Thus that by itself cannot be said that the part of cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra. If that be so, then no investigation by any police in India can be successfully carried out because any absconding accused can go to any corner of India and challenge the prosecution where he was staying. This concept is quite contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the investigation of an offence."

3. When the Constitution was framed, Article 226, as it originally stood therein provided that "every High Court shall have power throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person of authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs..." Some of the decisions rendered by different High Courts during the earlier years of the post-Constitution period have given a wider perspective regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court and pointed out that a High Court can exercise powers under Article 226 even in respect o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1449

Cases Referred (7)