Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3399
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN
Marshall Sons & Co. (Mfg.) Ltd.
Versus
Jayanth Bhattacharjee
W.A.Nos.482 and 483 of 2006
Decided on: 28-08-2009
For the Petitioner:V. Srikanth for R. Venkatavaradan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Shivakumar, Advocate.
The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court is not maintainable.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution - Sections 108 and 120-B, IPC - Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (4) CTC 60 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2966, and H.V. Jayaram v. ICICI Ltd., 2000 (1) CTC 168 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 579, Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and others, 2006 (2) CTC 57 (SC) : 2006 (3) SCC 658
Fact of the Case:
The appellant lodged a Private Complaint against the respondent and another for offences under Sections 108 and 120-B, IPC. The respondent filed a Writ Petition before the Court, seeking to quash the criminal case on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was not maintainable, citing relevant judgments.
Issues: The legal question was whether the writ petitioner was justified in filing a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the Criminal proceedings pending before a Criminal Court outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the judgments of Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra and Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. to establish that the Writ Petition was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the parties were directed to raise their respective pleas before the Criminal Court where the complaint was pending.
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. The appellant herein has lodged a Private Complaint as against the respondent and another before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata for the offences under Sections 108 and 120-B, IPC and the same was taken on file by the learned Magistrate in Case No.C/4725/05.
2. While so, the second accused therein, the respondent herein, has come forward to file Writ Petition No.30760 of 2005 before this Court, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to quash the said Criminal case. Along with the Writ Petition, the writ petitioner i.e. the respondent herein has filed W.P.M.P.No.33712 of 2005 to grant an order to stay of all further proceedings in case No.C/4725/05 pending before the learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and a learned Single Judge of this Court has granted an order of interim stay on 29. 2005 on the ground that a part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai as the office of the complainant is situated at No.33, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58. Thereupon, the appellant herein, who is the respondent in the Writ Petition and the complainant before the Criminal Court, has filed a Petition in W.V.M.P.No.423 of 2006 praying to vacate the interim stay granted.
3. Taking up both the Stay Petition and the vacate Stay Petition and placing reliance on two judgments of the Honourable Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (4) CTC 60 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2966, and H.V. Jayaram v. ICICI Ltd., 2000 (1) CTC 168 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 579, the learned Single Judge has held that excepting the averments found in para No.4 of the Complaint preferred by the complainant, in all other respects, the allegations made in the said Complaint do not disclose any substantial part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of Kolkata and on such and further observations, the learned Single Judge has made the interim stay absolute, dismissing the vacate Stay Petition filed by the complainant.
4. Aggrieved, the respondent in the Writ Petition, who is the complainant before the Criminal Court, has come forward to prefer both these Writ Appeals.
5. The legal question that is required to be considered and answered by us in these Appeals is ‘whether the writ petitioner is justified in filing a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the Criminal proceedings pending before a Criminal Court, admittedly, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court?’
6. The writ petitioner/respondent herein has contended in his affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that on a complete reading of the Criminal Complaint, it is evident that the entire narration of events, the allegations therein pertain to actions/inactions on the part of the writ petitioner in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the complainant Company herein in Chennai and no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Courts in Calcutta, which gave rise to a cause of action for the complainant to even initiate a Criminal proceedings in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court at Calcutta. In his Writ Petition, the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein and the accused in the Criminal case, has placed much reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (4) CTC 60 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 2966, to maintain the Writ Petition before this Court.
7. In the above said judgment, the Honourable Apex Court has held in the following manner:
“The power conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 could as well as 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. The amendment by which Clause (2) is ins
