Competency of the High Court to quash a complaint in a Court outside Kerala state.

The common respondent in these petitions filed a complaint, C.C. 65/S/1978 in the Metropolitan Magistrate's 17th Court at Mazgaon, Bombay against five accused for the offence under section 420 read with section 114, Indian Penal Code. Accused 5 is the Petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 1095, accused 2 and 3, are the petitioners in Crl.M.P. No. 1105 and accused 4 is the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 547. These accused are residents of this State and had been summoned to appear in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Bombay on 10th October, 1978. Crl.M.P. Nos. 1095 and 1105 were thereupon filed in this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”) and orders obtained on the accompanying petitions staying the case in the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court in Bombay. Accused 4 actually appeared in the Bombay Court and sought exemption from personal appearance. It is stated that a non-bailable warrant against him was issued by the Court (obviously owing to his non-appearance). Following the other three accused he then filed Crl. M.P.No. 547. The prayer in all the three petitions is to quash the complaint on the ground that it discloses no offence and that its continuance is an abuse of the process of the Court which should be stopped in the interests of justice.

2. The respondent was ex parte. As I felt Strong doubts on the power of this Court to quash a complaint pending in a Bombay Court, I heard Counsel for the petitioners on that question as a preliminary point. Section 482 of the Code on whose terms the arguments turned reads:

“Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

3. Counsel emphasised the words “any Court” and the absence of qualification as a Court “inferior” or “subordiate” to the concerned High Court and contended that the power of the High Court can therefore reach every Court in India to which the Code extends, wherever situate. In aid of this contention he quoted by way of contrast certain sections of the Code where the expression inferior Court or subordinate Court is used. Illustratively I might note the following Sections: Section 395 (‘ subordinate’), Section 397 (‘inferior’) , Section 407(1) (a) (ii) (‘subordinate’) and Section 483 (‘subordinate’). On these premises Counsel built up an argument that this Court is competent to act, even though the Bombay Court is not subordinate to this Court and is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The argument, if accepted is fraught with grave and inconvenient consequences, although if it is the effect of a true and correct interpretation of the section it must be upheld, whatever the inconvenience. But in my opinion, this is not its effect. The jurisdiction of this Court is confined to the territory of Kerala and its powers of control, judicial and administrative are limited to Courts, subordiante to it, in Kerala. The existence and extent of this power and its limitation flow from Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution as well. This limitation is inherent in the very constitution of the State judiciary in a federal polity like India. The contention of counsel would subject every Court in every State to the power and control of every High Courts in India; indeed if we read no qualification into the expression “any Court” it can conceivably be urged that the High Court's power would extend even to Courts of co-ordinate or superior jurisdiction. That could not have; been intended, nor is it the effect of the section. Under section 2(e)(i) of the Code and expression “High Court” means in relation to any State, the High Court of that State. If this expression is read into section 482, as we must, there being nothing contrary in the context, it would follow that the words ‘any Court’ in a State mean a Court in relation