TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srivastav, S.S. Shinde, S.V. Deshpande and Ranjan Mukherjee, for the Appearing Parties. JUDGMENT D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal filed by the writ petitioner is directed against the judgment dated 23-3-1999 of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing Naveenchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra W.P. No. 1683/88 on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 3. The appellant filed the writ petition against the State of Maharashtra, the State of Meghalaya, the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, Shillong, and Mr. Malerkode Subramanium Jayaram praying, inter alia, - ( a )to quash the complaint lodged by J.B. Holdings Ltd. or in the alternative, to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation being conducted by the officers of the CID at Shillong to the Economic Offences Wing, General Branch of the CID, Mumbai, or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police, and ( b )to issue a writ of prohibition or any other order or direction restraining the Special S.P. Police, CID, Shillong, and/or and investigating agency of the Meghalaya Police from taking any further step in respect of complai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 1,50,33,000 as earnest money for the purchase of the balance shares. On 13-10-1995, J.B. Holdings Ltd. paid the petitioner a further sum of Rs. 1 crore. On 31-10-1995, yet another sum of Rs. 1.24 crores was paid by J.B. Holdings Ltd. From the amount received from J.B. Holdings Ltd. the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2.25 crores by way of refund of the forfeited amount to Chinar Export Ltd. as per the terms of the settlement in Suit No. 178 of 1995 filed in the Bombay High Court. Against the payment made by J.B. Holdings Ltd. the petitioner delivered 170 shares of IFPL which were duly transferred in the name of J.B. Holdings Ltd. and delivered to them at Mumbai. 8. The petitioner alleged that at no point of time, J.B. Holdings Ltd. offered to make the balance payment or to take delivery of the remaining shares. As J.B. Holdings Ltd. had committed default in making the balance payment and thereby committed breach of the agreement dated 18-9-1995 the said agreement stood terminated and the earnest money stood forfeited as stipulated in the agreement. 9. It was further alleged in the writ petition that after some correspon dence between the parties, J.B. Holdings Ltd. had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is clearly mala fide and without sanction of law and procedure. 11. In the writ petition, it was contended that in the two letters dated 14-9-1998 and 16-9-1998 addressed by the Assistant Police Inspector, Malvani Police Station, to the petitioner, it was stated that the complaint had been received in the Police Station at Malvani and the petitioner was requested to attend the said Police Station with documents. Thereafter, on 19-9-1998, the statement of the petitioner was recorded and certain documents were received from him at Malvani Police Station. 12. The petitioner also contended in the writ petition that the allegations made against him in the complaint do not make out any cognizable offence and the dispute, if any, is of civil nature. 13. Mr. Melarkode, Subramanian Jayaram, who was arrayed as respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, filed a counter-affidavit generally denying the averments made in the writ petition. The respondent referred to the writ petition filed by the complainant, J.B. Holdings Ltd., in Gauhati High Court, challenging the action of the Government of Meghalaya refusing permission to the concerned Police officers to go to Mumbai on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... holly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court. 18. In legal parlance, the expression 'cause of action' is generally under stood to mean situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing, a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from another person. (Black's Law Dictionary ) . 19. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a 'cause of action' is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. 20. In' Words and Phrases' (Fourth edition), the meaning attributed to the phrase 'cause of action' in common legal parlance is existence of those facts which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf. 21. A Bench of three learned Judges of this Court in the case of Oil Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu [1994] 4 Comp. LJ. 203 considered at length the question of territorial jurisdiction under article 226(2). Some of the relevant observations made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words, the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in t he petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case, the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged, must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22, 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court." (Emphasis supplied) 22. So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned, the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, the trial can be had in a Court having jurisdiction over any of those localities. The provision has further widened the scope by stating that in case where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in another local area the Court in either of the localities can exercise jurisdiction to try the case. Further again, section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stretches its scope to a still wider horizon. 25. In the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State ( Government of NCT of Delhi ) [1999] 8 SCC 728, the question of quashing of FIR on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the police to investigate the offence came up for consideration. Construing the provision of sections 154, 162, 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court held that if Investigating Officer finds that the crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, he can forward the FIR to the Police Station concerned, but this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the Police Officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it. Disapproving the order of the Delhi High Court quashing the FIR at the investigation stage on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of the complainant to harass and pressurise the petitioners to reverse the transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter. On the averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. 28. The next question for consideration is regarding proper order to be passed in the case. 29. Considering the peculiar fact situation of the case, we are of the view that setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the case to the High Court for fresh disposal will cause further delay in investigation of the matter and may create other complications. Instead, it will be apt and proper to direct that further investigation relating to complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. should be made by the Mumbai Police. 30. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment under challenge and dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the complaint lodge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that the High Court can exercise the power under Article 226, also to quash an FIR where no offence is disclosed, cannot be construed to have jurisdiction to be exercised outside the territory here no FIR is lodged. To hold so would be far fetched. The instance that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being questioned by Bombay Police is only as a part of investigation. Police of a particular State can very well seek the assistance of police of another State in the course of the investigation of a crime. It is permissible under section 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that any police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. Exercising this power, the Assam Police might have come to Bombay also and sought aid of Bombay Police. Thus, that by itself cannot be said that the part of cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra. If that be so then no investigation by any Police in India can be successfully carried out because any absconding accused can go to any corner of India and challenge the prosecution where he was staying. Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enth Amendment to the Constitution by which clause (1A) was added to article 226. That clause was subsequently renumbered as clause (2) by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976. Now clause (2) of article 226 reads thus : "(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 7. The object of the amendment by inserting clause (2) in the article was to supersede the decision of the Supreme Court in Saka Venkata Subba Rao's case ( supra ) , and to restore the view held by the High Courts in the decisions cited above. Thus, the power conferred on the High Courts under article 226 could as well be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which 'the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises', and it is no matter that the seat of the authority conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etation to the expression Ahmadi, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) speaking for M.N. Venkatachalliah, C.J., and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., utilised the opportunity to caution the High Courts against transgressing into the jurisdiction of the other High Courts merely on the ground of some insignificant event connected with the cause of action taking place within the territorial limits of the High Court to which the litigant approaches at his own choice or convenience. The following are such observations : "If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occurred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say so, but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency, we sill, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the insti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
