Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 15474
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN
S.P.VELAYUTHAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY – Respondent
A writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to quash an FIR if it discloses commission of cognizable offences despite ongoing civil disputes, establishing judicial authority over investigative proceedings.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Writ Petition - Cr.P.C Section 156(3) - This case reflects on the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C, establishing that a judicial order enabling police investigation supersedes claims of territorial jurisdiction and allows the High Court to intervene when sufficient grounds of fraud and cheating are presented.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an FIR under Crime No. 210/2020 registered by the Economic Offences Wing, asserting lack of jurisdiction and the existence of a civil dispute regarding the same matter. The FIR alleges substantial fraudulent activity related to land purchase.
Issues: 1) Whether the petitioner engaged in forum shopping by filing a writ petition in Chennai while the complaint originated in Delhi. 2) Did the civil suit pendency obstruct the jurisdiction for the police investigation?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the presence of a civil suit does not bar criminal proceedings when a cognizable crime is alleged, and the judicial order for investigation supersedes claims against jurisdiction, affirming the writ's maintainability.
Final Decision: Writ Petition No. 13793 of 2024 dismissed, allowing the investigation to proceed.
O R D E R
This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned FIR in Crime No.210 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of 1st respondent/Inspector of Police, EOW, New Delhi and quash the same as without jurisdiction, vitiated by Legal Malafides and abuse of process of law or in alternative, direct the 1st respondent to transfer the Investigation being conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, New Delhi to the Economic Offences Wing, Tambaram Commissionerate or any other Investigating Agency of the Chennai Police.
2. The above said Writ Petition to quash the F.I.R in Crime No.210/2020 on the file of Inspector of Police, Section V, Economic Offences Wing been registered as per the direction of the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in exercise of its power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3. The substantial grounds raised in this quash petition are:-
i) Suppressing the fact that Civil Suit in C.S.No.169/2018 pending on the file of the Original Side of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras regarding the same transaction in respect of immovable properties at Chennai, the complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Delhi given by abusing the process of law.
ii) The earlier criminal complaints to the police regarding the same transaction been enquired and action dropped as civil dispute. Despite that, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi without following the dictum laid in Priyanka Srivatsava case, [2015(6)SCC 287] had entertained the complaint petition filed 14 years after the occurrence alleging cheating, misrepresentation, breach of trust and conspiracy. iii) The entire transaction between the parties took place in Chennai. The property which is the subject matter of the complaint is within the jurisdiction of Chennai. While so, making a vague averment that the negotiation took place in Delhi and payments were made at Delhi, the complainant had chosen forum at Delhi to agitate his criminal complaint after filing the suit in Madras High Court for the same transaction stating the cause of the action for the suit for recovery of money is within the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court. Had the complainant fairly disclosed in his complaint that the complainant company had initiated Civil Suit for recovery of money against this petitioner, the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi would not have entertained the complaint and issued direction to register the complaint.
4. The Registry of this Court, had doubt whether Writ Petition to quash a criminal complaint under investigation by Delhi Police based on the judicial order passed by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi could be entertained. Therefore, the matter was listed under caption “For Maintainability” before the Learned Judge for appropriate order.
5. After considering the facts of the case and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in i) Oil and Natural Gas Commission -vs- Utpal Kumar Basu and others reported in 1994(4) SCC 711 and ii) Navinchandra N.Majithia -vs- State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2000 (7) SCC
640 this Court held that, the Writ Petition is maintainable and directed the Registry to list the case for hearing after numbering it. Accordingly, when the matter came up for admission on 24/05/2024, this Court being prima faciely satisfied that the complaint at Delhi is without jurisdiction granted interim stay for two weeks and ordered notice for hearing the 2nd respondents.
6. After notice, the defacto complainant had entered appearance through his Counsel. Also a preliminary counter filed on behalf of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent. That apart, on behalf of the 2nd respondent oral submissions made by Mr.T.Gowthaman, Senior Counsel on why this writ petition has to be dismissed.
7. In the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent it is stated that, to quash a criminal co
