Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
Maria Ramesh & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 2688 & 25129 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 3019, 26488 & 26490 of 2021
Decided On : 11-08-2022
Writ Petitions - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - [TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION] - [Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC] - The court dismissed the Writ Petitions as it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain them, emphasizing that the cause of action for quashing the FIR arose only before the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi and not at all places where part of the cause for lodging the complaint may have arisen and where the FIR could have been registered and investigated and where the ensuing criminal case could have been tried. The court also highlighted the principle of forum convenience, stating that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. The court emphasized that the judicial discipline requires and expediency demands that only the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the complaint is filed or criminal case is pending entertains the petitions arising therefrom.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions were filed to quash the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC on the file of the second respondent. The complainants alleged that the accused persons induced and misrepresented regarding a project, collected money, and failed to hand over the promised flats. The accused persons challenged the maintainability of the Writ Petitions before the court, citing territorial jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petitions, as the cause of action for quashing the FIR arose only before the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi. The court emphasized the principle of forum convenience and stated that only the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the complaint is filed or criminal case is pending should entertain the petitions arising therefrom.
Issues: The main issue was the territorial jurisdiction of the court to entertain the Writ Petitions challenging the FIR registered at New Delhi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the cause of action for quashing the FIR arose only before the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi and not at all places where part of the cause for lodging the complaint may have arisen. The court also highlighted the principle of forum convenience, stating that even if a small part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both Writ Petitions, stating that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain them, and directed the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble High Court of New Delhi, which had territorial jurisdiction over the matter.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records which culminated into the FIR No.218 of 2020 dated 16.12.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as it is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.)
Common Order
1. These Writ Petitions have been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.218 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 120B of IPC as against the petitioners.
2. The petitioners in both Writ Petitions are arrayed as accused in Crime No.218 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B of I.P.C., as A1, A2 & A7. The respondents 3 & 4 are complainants lodged complaint before the second respondent alleging that the accused persons assured them that the project viz., USHERA situated at Kancheepuram, Chennai, is well funded by M/s. Call Express Construction (India) Private Limited for which, a promotional event was organized at Maurya Sheraton Hotel, New Delhi on 27.02.2015. In that promotional event, the complainants were induced and misrepresented regarding the project called USHERA. Therefore, the complainants handed over post dated cheques to the accused persons.
3. As per the sale & construction agreements, the project has to be completed within three years from the date of signing of the construction agreement i.e., 05.06.2015. Further alleged that one of the accused traveled to New Delhi to met with victims and got signed the loan application forms as well as the construction agreements. However, the construction of the said project was stopped in the year 2017 and the accused persons failed to handed over the flats. All the accused persons connived together misappropriated the amount which was invested by the complainant as follows:-
| Name of the victims | Payment made through LIC (INR) | Payment made from own/family account | Total Payment (INR) |
| Hans Sachdev | 1,93,40,000 | 37,50,000 | 1,30,90,000 |
| Harpreet Sachdev | 1,94,40,000 | 37,50,000 | 2,31,90,000 |
| Charu Sachdev | 2,01,00,000 | 37,50,000 | 2,38,50,000 |
| Priya Sachdev | 1,87,00,000 | 37,50,000 | 2,24,50,000 |
| M/s. Pee Empro Exports Pvt. Ltd (Prit Mohinder Singh Uppal) | 2,31,18,352 | 2,31,18,352 | |
| M/s. Bir Hotels (Anis Bir) | 1,00,00,000 | 1,00,00,000 | |
| M/s.CTC Geo technical Pvt Ltd through Sh. Jessa Chawala | 1,49,00,000 | 1,49,00,000 | |
| Suubash Sachdev | 73,79,000 | 73,79,000 |
4. The accused persons have collected money in the name of the companies called M/s. Call Express Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, M/s. Call Express Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, M/s. Callex Creations Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, M/s. Callex Australia Pvt. Ltd., Australia. All the accused persons are Directors and Auditor of the said companies. On 27.02.2015, the function was organized in the Hotel Maurya Sheraton, New Delhi and a sum of Rs. 8,13,603/- was paid by the company M/s. Call Express Construction India Pvt. Ltd. In the said hotel, the accused persons had stayed on 27.02.2015 & 28.02.2015.
5. While pending the investigation, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petitions before this Court to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 218 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent. This Court admitted the Writ Petitions and also granted stay of all further proceedings in Crime No.218 of 2020 on the file of the second respondent by an order dated 08.02.2021. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 3 & 4 herein filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.No.1806 of 2021 and after considering the submission made by the respondent 3 & 4 with regards to territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these Writ Petitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by an order dated 04.10.2021 set aside the interim order passed by this Court and also directed this Court to decide the prelim
Section 177 of the CrPC unambiguously states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
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 cas....
The court ruled that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions when the integral part of the cause of action arises outside its territorial limits, despite minor connections to th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'cause of action' and the concept of territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in relation to the notice....
Point of Law : Territorial jurisdiction - Prior to Constitutional (Fifteenth Amendment Act, 1963, concept of cause of action was alien for adjudication of disputes by High Court under Article 226 of ....
The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court to decline jurisdiction even when a part of the cause of action arises in its territory, focusing on the convenience of all parties involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Consti....
A High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226(2) requires that part of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
