2000 (9) TMI 925 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Bombay High Court was right in passing the order rejecting the writ petition on the ground that the Court could not entertain the writ petition as the peti tioner had prayed for quashing the complaint filed against him by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong? Held that - Appeal allowed. It is almost impossible to hold that not even a part of the cause of action has arisen at Bombay so as to deprive the High Court of Bombay of total jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Even the very fact that major portion of the investigation of the case under the FIR has to be conducted at Bombay itself shows that the cause of action cannot escape from the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226.
2. Validity of the complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong.
3. Transfer of investigation from Shillong to Mumbai.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226:

The main issue was whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash a complaint lodged in Shillong. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the complaint was filed in Shillong, and thus, the Bombay High Court could not entertain the petition. However, the Supreme Court highlighted that Article 226(2) of the Constitution allows a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the expression "cause of action" refers to the bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove to obtain a judgment in their favor.

The Supreme Court referred to the case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu, which clarified that a High Court could exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arose within its territory. The Court also noted that the place where the alleged offense was committed is crucial in determining jurisdiction concerning criminal offenses. In this case, significant events related to the allegations in the FIR occurred in Mumbai, suggesting that part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court.

2. Validity of the complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong:

The petitioner contended that the complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong was false and mala fide, aimed at harassing and pressurizing him to reverse the transaction for the transfer of shares. The petitioner argued that the entire transaction took place in Mumbai, and therefore, the complaint should not have been entertained by the Shillong Police. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not consider the alternative prayer in the writ petition for transferring the investigation to Mumbai Police. The Court also observed that the High Court failed to consider the averments in the writ petition regarding the mala fide intention behind filing the complaint at Shillong.

3. Transfer of investigation from Shillong to Mumbai:

Given the peculiar facts of the case, the Supreme Court decided that remitting the case to the High Court for fresh disposal would cause further delay in the investigation and create complications. Instead, the Court directed that the investigation of the complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong be transferred to the Mumbai Police for further investigation through its Economic Offences Wing, General Branch, CID, or any other branch as decided by the competent authority of the Mumbai Police.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court, and directed the transfer of the investigation to the Mumbai Police. The Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant facts and averments in determining the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and highlighted the need for a holistic approach in such matters.