Denesan, J.

Would it be proper for this Court to entertain writ petitions to quash the proceedings of a subordinate Court under the superintendence of another High Court? This question has come up for consideration in the background of the following facts.

2. Appellants are accused in Calendar Case No.388 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Erode in the State of Tamil Nadu and the respondent is the complainant in that case. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. First accused is a partnership firm having its office at Ernakulam in the State of Kerala. Other accused are residents of Ernakulam. They filed W.P.(C).No.19816 of 2004 before this Court under Article 226 o the Constitution of India to quash the complaint in the above calendar case. Writ Petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint are false, the entire episode had taken place at Ernakulam in Kerala State and therefore the complaint filed before the Court at Erode was liable to be quashed. According to the appellants, what exactly happened was that a gang of persons accompanied by a police officer from Tamil Nadu came to Kerala, trespassed into their house, forcibly took away cheque leaves and foisted a false case misusing those cheque leaves with the malicious intention of dragging the appellants/accused to face prosecution proceedings before a Criminal Court situated in the State of Tamil Nadu where no part of the alleged cause of action has arisen. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 6-7-2004 holding that (i) for appreciating the contention of the writ petitioners evidence was needed and (ii) evidence in that regard can be taken only by the trial court. This writ appeal is directed against the above judgment.

3. Appellants contended that the pleadings in the writ petition are sufficient to establish that the impugned proceedings are per se illegal and therefore the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the writ petition. Before the learned counsel for the appellants proceeded to elaborate the contention of the appellants on the above ground, we interrupted and requested the learned counsel to dispel a doubt entertained by us touching the very propriety of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings of a subordinate Court situated within the territorial jurisdiction of another High Court.

4. Shri Jaju Babu, counsel for the appellants, contended that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings pending before the authority whether within or outside the State is no more res integra in the light of the dictum laid down in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Others (AIR 2000 SC 2966). The Apex Court has held that the maintainability of the writ petition in the High Court depends on the existence of conditions mentioned in clause (1) of Article 226 or the conditions mentioned in clause (2) thereof. As per clause (2) of Article 226 High Court can exercise jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of the power to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person, irrespective of the fact that the seat or residence of such Government or authority or person as the case may be, is not within those territories. Therefore, when clause (1) confers jurisdiction on the existence of the fact that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person to whom writs, orders or directions are issued, clause (2) of Article 226 confers power on the High Court to issue writs upon the existence of cause of action arising wholly or in part, within the territories over which it is competent to exercise jurisdiction. Counsel invited our atte