ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for opposite party no.2, Sri Jitendra Kumar Rai, learned A.G.A. assisted by Sri Bhanu Prakash, Brief Holder for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding in Complaint Case No.720 of 2017, Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Mohammad Iqbal and others, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., and Sections 211, 297, 299, 301, 678, 629-A of the Companies Act, 1956 and Sections 129, 184, 188, 189, 447 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013, Police Station Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, pending in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3 and Special Judge, (Companies Act), Dwarka, District Court/Delhi and quashing of the summoning order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the aforesaid court.

3. At the very outset, objection has been raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, Shri Gyan Prakash to the maintainability of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C before this Court. Ground being that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this application. In this case, the proceedings have been initiated on the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court and the investigation was done by special agency ‘Serious Fraud Investigation Office’ and violations of rules and regulations of provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, inter-alia, was found to have been committed extensively by a large number of accused including the present applicant - accused and after due investigation, complaint was filed in the special Court of District Dwarka at Delhi, which upon consideration of the contents and merit of the case has rightly summoned the accused- applicants - vide its order dated 24-1-2019 to face the trial (in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2017). Learned Additional Solicitor General of India added that the summoning order dated 24-01-2019 was previously challenged before the High Court of jurisdiction at Delhi in Criminal M.C. No. 647 of 2019 and Criminal M.A. No.2713 of 2019 but the petition has been rejected and the summoning order has been sustained.

4. In reply to the aforesaid objection, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the plea of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, in the absence of express bar to its exercise either in the Companies Act, 1956 or the provisions of Cr.P.C, shall be determined on the basis of ‘cause of action’ in a criminal case. It is always relevant as to where the cause of action arose. The auction-purchase was made at Lucknow and the subject matter of this auction was undeniably several sugar mills located in various districts, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Deoria, Jaunpur etc. and the central office of the applicants is situated at Saharanpur. The first information report was also lodged at District Lucknow.

5. The allegations are specific that the applicants-accused amassed huge money by indulging in illegal mining in and around areas of district - Saharanpur. These allegations have been tried to be sharpened by alleging that various false entities in the shape of companies and trust were created with the help of financially trained persons in order to legalize the money auction purchase was made at Lucknow in utter violation of rules and bye laws and sugar mills were purchased at considerable lower price than the minimum bidding price.

6. All these facts when taken as a whole and put together would palpably lead to conclusion that the entire ‘cause of action’ arose in this case exclusively within different places and districts of Uttar Pradesh. It is settled position while determining point of jurisdiction in a criminal case that the place where the crime was committed holds center position. The learned counsel also pressed in service provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C and claimed that place of commission of the