The judgment emphasized the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with criminal cases registered in other states and highlighted the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

1. The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the FIR registered in FIR No.I-166/2011 lodged with the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and seeks to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu to monitor its subordinates while accompanying the police officials for getting transit warrant before the concerned Magistrates against any illegal detention.

2. Heard the argument of Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the records that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner by one Uday K.Patil, a resident of Andheri (East), Mumbai regarding various fraudulent transactions that the petitioner had with the said complainant. An English translation of the Marati FIR was also provided to the petitioner. When asked as to how this court has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case registered in Maharashtra and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Palghar and the writ petition is maintainable, the counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N.Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966 in support of his contention that this court has got power to interfere even in respect of criminal case registered in some other State, i.e. in the present case within the State of Maharashtra.

3. On the contrary, in respect of criminal offences, the jurisdiction of an High Court is well defined. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg.Ltd reported in 2006 (3) SCC 658 dealt with the scope of power under Article 226 of the Constitution while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the orders of Magistrates taking cognizance under Cr.P.C. It was held that an High Court under Article 226 should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance by a competent Court of law. Only an High Court in whose jurisdiction the order of the Subordinate Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court also must remind itself about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. It is necessary to refer to the passages found in paragraphs 25, 28 to 29 in that judgment which are as follows:-

25.) It is no doubt true that in a criminal matter also the High Court may exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking cognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ of certiorari ordinarily would not be issued by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra9.) However, we are not oblivious of a decision of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai10 wherein this Court upon noticing Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar9 and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra11 opined that a Judicial Court would also be subject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision has again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash12. It is, however, not necessary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noticed recently by this Court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar13 holding that even in terms thereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the application thereof. In Surya Dev Rai10 we may however, notice that this Court categorically stated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a very limited jurisdiction. It also made a distinction between exercise of jurisdi