The High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its jurisdiction, but it may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum convenience, considering factors such as the convenience of the parties and the possibility of conflicting views in case the matter is pursued in multiple Courts.

Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69241 of 2017 is filed to call for the records relating to the FIR filed by the respondent under Section 154 Cr.PC having Ref. No. RC 2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the same and all proceedings thereto as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by malfides.

2. Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69245 of 2017 is filed to call for the records of the respondent relating to the Notice Under Section 41-A(1) r/w.4(1)(b) Cr.PC dated 04.07.2017 having Ref.No.5290 issued to the petitioner and quash the same as without jurisdiction, vitiated by legal malafides and in contravention of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273.

3. Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69249 of 2017 is filed to call for the records relating to the FIR registered by the 1st respondent under Section 154 Cr.PC having Ref.No.RC 2202017 E 011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and consequential notices dated 04.07.2017, having Ref.No.5294/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5292/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5293/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, issued to the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 by the 2nd respondent under Section 160 Cr.PC and quash the same as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by malafides.

4. While scrutinizing the papers, the Registry returned all the petitions to the counsel for the petitioners for the following clarification:-

“It may be stated as to how the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the subject matter pertains to Criminal in nature and also the cause of action arose in New Delhi, hence the same may be clarified.”

5. The respective counsel represented the papers with an endorsement made in a separate sheet, which reads as follows :-

WP.SR. Nos.69241 & 69245 of 2017

In para 65 of the Writ Petitions, it is stated as follows:

"Even though the FIR was filed in the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi, part of the cause of action arose in Chennai even as per column 5 of the FIR stating that the place of occurrence is Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai; the search pursuant to the search warrant issued by the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi was conducted in Chennai; and the alleged illegal gratification of Rs.10 lakhs was received in Chennai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant Writ Petition".

In Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will have jurisdiction to quash a FIR if part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the said High Court even though the FIR is registered in a different state. Kindly refer Para's 27, 43, 44 and 45.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme court examined the scope of the High Court's power to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of CrPC. Further the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC have no limits. Further Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. Refer Para 22 and 30.

Hence, Writ Petitions are maintainable.

WP.SR. NO. 69249 of 2017

In para 48 of the Writ Petition, it is stated as follows:

"The Petitioners are aggrieved by the FIR dated 15.05.2017, the consequential search operations conducted on 16.05.2017 and the summons issued by the investigation officer to the Petitioners 4 to 6. Even though the FIR was filed in the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi, part of the cause of action arose in Chennai even as per column 5 of the FIR stating that the place of occurrence is