The service of summons does not form an integral part of the cause of action, and a writ cannot lie against a court acting in the exercise of its judicial functions.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking "to declare that the cognizance taken on the criminal complaint evidenced by Ext. P4 and the order of summons issued thereon evidenced by Ext. P5 and the steps taken in furtherance thereof are illegal, inoperative and void." The petitioner also seek for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any steps in furtherance of the criminal complaint under Crime No. 3892/96 pending before the second respondent. The second respondent is the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Vadodara, Gujarat State, Ext. P4 is the copy of a criminal complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent Court and Ext. P5 is the summons issued by the second respondent to the petitioner with regard to the trial of Ext. P. 4.

2. The petitioner submits that the first respondent has not significantly stated anywhere in Ext. P4 complaint that the offence alleged had been committed by the petitioner within the local jurisdiction of the second respondent Court. So the second respondent in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the petitioner has violated the mandatory provisions contained in S. 177 and S. 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by the second respondent in a complaint for offence not stated to have been committed within the local jurisdiction is neither just nor reasonable and hence it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India depriving the petitioner's 'personal liberty not in accordance with the procedure established by law, as has been done in this case.' Thus the petitioner contends that the second respondent has total lack of jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P4 complaint and, therefore, there is 'flagrant abuse of the process of the Court.' He submits that summons Ext. P5 was served on the petitioner at Ernakulam and such service is 'an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Article 226(2) of the Constitution'. The petitioner contends that the second respondent, before entertaining Ext. P4 and issuing Ext. P5 summons, ought to have ascertained whether the cause of action had arisen within his jurisdiction and that the second respondent had responsibility and duty before entertaining a private complaint 'to find whether the concerned accused should be legally proceeded against for the offence charged.' It is further contended that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, if at all there was any, is at Ernakulam and not within the local jurisdiction of the second respondent Court. Therefore, the summons issued is in violation of the provisions in S. 177 and S. 181(4) of the Criminal P.C. There is total abuse of power by the second respondent, the petitioner submits. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the reliefs as aforementioned.

3. The petition is under Article 226 and not under Article 227 obviously because the second respondent-Magistrate is not within the supervisory control of this Court. The petitioner has approached this Court with a specific contention that service of summons, from the Court outside the jurisdiction of this Court, will confer jurisdiction to this Court to entertain a petition under Art. 226. The petitioner draws support to this contention from Article 226(2), which reads as follows :

"The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."

4. Admittedly the criminal complaint was filed by the first respondent before the second respondent Court situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court an