The central legal point established in the judgment is the limitation of the High Court's powers of control and supervision to Courts in its territorial jurisdiction, and the interpretation of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226, Article 227, and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

J.B. Koshy and K. Padmanabhan Nair, JJ. - An important question of law regarding jurisdiction of this Court was referred to the Division Bench by a learned Single Judge (Justice N.Krishnan Nair) after noticing contrary views expressed by this Court in Sreethara Kamath v. Jawala Prasad Guptha, 1970 KIT 45 and Chellappan v. Chandulal, 1980 KIT 411 on one side and J.C. Augustine v. Omprakash Nanakram, 2001(2) KU 57 on the other side. The common question arising for consideration in these cases is whether this Court can quash a criminal complaint pending in a Court outside the Kerala State in a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

2. As far as the facts of these cases are concerned, petitioner is the partner of a firm named "Online Instruments" functioning in Kochi. Various complaints were filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mumbai under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, the firm `Online Instruments' and some of the partners of the firm. It's the case of the petitioner that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the case as no part of the cause of action arose in the jurisdictional area of that Court. All the accused arrayed as parties are living in Kerala. It was further contended that even if the allegations in the complaint were correct, there is no case made out against the petitioner as legal requirements before filing the complaint against the petitioner were not satisfied by the respondents/complainants. It is also stated that petitioner has not signed the cheques, and no notice was received by him regarding dishonour of the cheques. He pleads total ignorance of the issuance of the cheques in question. Petitioner has also got a case that one of his partners must have taken the cheque leaves of the Company and misused it and therefore he wants quashing of the complaint so far as it is against him.

3. We quote the order of reference before answering the same :

"The common question arising for consideration is whether the High Court can quash a complaint pending in a Court outside the Kerala State. As early as 1970 this Court in Sreethara Kamath v. Jawala Prasad Gupta, 1970KLT50. observed that it is doubtful if the Kerala High Court has power to set aside an order or quash a proceeding of a Court outside its jurisdiction or area of superintendence. Again in Chellappan v. Chandulal, 1980 KIT 411. the question came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court. It has been held in that case that the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to the territory of Kerala and its powers of control, judicial and administrative, are limited to Courts, subordinate to it, in Kerala. In other words, the learned Single Judge in the decision referred to above held that the High Court cannot under Section 482 quash a complaint pending in a Court outside the Kerala State. But a contrary view is taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in J.C. Augustine v. Omprakash Nankram. 2001(2) KLT 57. In that case the accused in C.C. No. 1093/97 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court No. 16, Ah-medabad filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing a complaint and further proceedings pursuant thereto. This Court held that since the part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The learned Single Judge relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra. (2000)7 SCC 640. That was a case where the Supreme Court had considered whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to quash an FIR registered at Shillong. It has been held by the Supreme Court that from the provision in Clause (2) of Article 226 it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the Writ Petition in the High Court depends on whether the