Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 1680 - HC - Indian LawsTerritorial Jurisdiction - Dishonor of Cheque - whether Writ Petition under Article 226 is maintainable as against a criminal court which is situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court? - HELD THAT:- A Full Bench of this Court had occasion to consider that pertinent issue in Meenakshi Sathish v. Southern Petrochemicals Industries reported in [2007 (1) TMI 644 - KERALA HIGH COURT] and it was held in paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof that in view of clause (2) of Article 226, if part of the cause of action had arisen in the State, writ could be issued against an authority, though the seat of that authority is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. But, the cause of action which must arise in Kerala for issuing the writs of certiorari or prohibition, must relate to the commissions or omissions of an inferior court or Tribunal amenable to the writ jurisdiction of that court and not that of a private party. This Court cannot judicially review the actions of the first respondent therein (the complainant concerned) and that if a complainant files any complaint before any court it may do it rightly or wrongly and the complainant in a complaint alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, being a private party is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and therefore, this Court cannot judicially review the actions of such a complainant by invoking the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled law that a High Court shall have judicial superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises its jurisdiction. In other words, the subordinate court/Tribunal concerned which is sought to be supervised under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be one which is situated and functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the complaint has been entertained by the Metropolitan Magistrate Court concerned based at New Delhi which is indisputably not within the territorial limits of this Court - the alternate plea made by the petitioner that this Court should invoke jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. The place of commission of the offence is the place where the dishonour of the cheques occur, but that the only court which is having jurisdiction as the competent court to try the offence is the Magistrate Court having territorial jurisdiction over the collection Bank area. This Court need not pronounce any final opinion on this issue, as this Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to entertain these petitions and all those issues raised by the petitioner are left open to be appropriately raised and decided before the competent fora concerned - petition dismissed as not maintainable.
|