2021 Supreme(Mad) 739

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Ajay Kumar Bishnoi – Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Chennai TN & Others – Respondent
W.P. Nos. 32536 & 35863 of 2019 & WMP Nos. 36769, 36772 & 32894 of 2019
Decided On : 24-03-2021

Point of law: power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. is concerned, the only criteria is the situs of the authority who has registered the case and not the place of commission of the crime either in full or in part. Similarly, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a criminal case also does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the said High Court if the case is pending on the file of an authority who is located outside the territorial limits of the said High Court

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 – Writ of Declaration – Writ of Mandamus – Writ petition., has been filed challenging the FIR registered by the Janakpuri Police Station, New Delhi in Crime, and W.P., has been filed forbearing thesaid Police from taking coercive action against the petitioner in any manner, pursuant to the order of proclamation, issued by the Metropolitan Magistrate-08, Dwaraka Courts, New Delhi. – Respondent gave a complaint to the 2nd respondent on 24.06.2016, to the effect that the petitioner along with another Director named Mr. AmulGabrani, belonging to ABAG Hi-Tech Educational Pvt., Limited, approached the 3rd respondent and apprised him about an on-line Education Scheme to be undertaken by the Company and the 3rd respondent was asked to invest in the Company. – The 3rd respondent on believing the representation made by the petitioner and the other Director, invested a sum of Rs.4.26/- crores. – The further allegation made by the 3rd respondent is that the project did not go through and the 3rdrespondent therefore, insisted for the repayment of the amount invested by him. – The 3rd respondent repaid a sum of Rs.2.36/- crores and he never received the balance amount of Rs.1.90/- crores. – Based on this complaint, the 2nd respondent registered an FIR against the petitioner and another in Crime, for offence under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860

Finding of court: In the present case except for the fact that the petitioner is having his residence at Chennai, there is no other cause of action that has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. – Almost all the major events have taken place only within the jurisdiction of New Delhi. – Even the registered office of the Company in which the petitioner is a Director, is situated at New Delhi. – All the transactions had taken place in New Delhi and even the earlier writ petitions were filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the FIR only before the Delhi High Court. In fact, the FIR was quashed for the co accused only by the Delhi High Court. – Court finding that the 3rd respondent has misused criminal proceedings and it is a clear abuse of process of law and the FIR cannot be sustained only as against the petitioner after it has been quashed for the co-accused on the ground of settlement, this Court is of the considered opinion that it will be exceeding its territorial jurisdiction if the present writ petitions are entertained and allowed. – Judicial discipline is tying the hands of this Court from exercising its jurisdiction into the territorial jurisdiction of New Delhi. – For if this Court entertains the present writ petitions, it may set a bad precedent and with a very heavy heart, this Court has to relegate the petitioner to file an appropriate petition before the Delhi High Court. – The petitioner will have the liberty to move the Delhi High Court on the same cause of action and workout his remedy. – Petitioner had the benefit of an interim order right through the proceedings. – Since this Court is granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Delhi High Court, this Court deems it fit to continue the interim order till the petitioner approaches the Delhi High Court. – Hence, the interim order granted by this Court is extended for a period of eight weeks and in the meantime, the petitioner shall approach the Delhi High Court and work out his remedy.

Result: Writ Petitions Disposed of