9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 822X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e above calendar case. Writ petitioners contended that the allegations made in the complaint are false, the entire episode had taken place at Ernakulam in Kerala State and therefore the complaint filed before the Court at Erode was liable to be quashed. According to the appellants, what exactly happened was that a gang of persons accompanied by a police officer from Tamil Nadu came to Kerala, trespassed into their house, forcibly took away cheque leaves and foisted a false case misusing those cheque leaves with the malicious intention of dragging the appellants/accused to face prosecution proceedings before a Criminal Court situated in the State of Tamil Nadu where no part of the alleged cause of action has arisen. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by the learned Single Judge as per judgment dated 6-7-2004 holding that (i) for appreciating the contention of the writ petitioners evidence was needed and (ii) evidence in that regard can be taken only by the trial court. This writ appeal is directed against the above judgment. 2. Appellants contended that the pleadings in the writ petition are sufficient to establish that the impugned proceedings are per se illegal and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e have considered the contentions of the learned counsel in the light of the decisions cited by him and the relevant provisions of the Constitution and are of the view that it is not proper for this Court to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records and examine the legality or otherwise of the proceedings of a subordinate Court under the superintendence of another High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In our view, the parties involved in the case pending before the criminal court at Erode can more appropriately invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras either under Article 226 or under Article 227 or under both the Articles. 5. No doubt if the dictum laid down in Navinchandra's case (supra) is applicable to the factual situation here, we are bound to follow the law laid down therein and cannot refuse to entertain this writ appeal or hold that the appellants shall invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras. It is pertinent to note that in Navinchandra's case (supra) the Apex Court was concerned with the prayer made to quash the First Information Report registered by the polic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, the self same proceedings of a subordinate Court can become the subject matter of two or more proceedings; one filed before the High Court having jurisdiction under clause (2) of Article 226 seeking to quash the lower court proceedings on the plea that the cause of action, wholly or in part, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court and the other filed before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the seat of the subordinate Court is situate and thus having jurisdiction under clause (1) of Article 226 as also under Article 227 of the Constitution. It is possible that in a wide range of disputes, parties may seek reliefs in respect of the very same subject matter between the same parties, invoking Article 226 or/and 227 of the Constitution. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003 (6) SCC 675, this aspect was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended and the remedy provided under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Surya Dev Rai was decided by the Apex Court upon a review of decided cases and survey of the decisions wherein the High Courts have exercised j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are under challenge, is within the territorial limits over which the High Court of Madras has jurisdiction in terms of clause (1) of Article 226. Yet another factor also may confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Madras. Suppose, the fact is that part of the cause of action had arisen within the State of Kerala and the other part within the State of Tamil Nadu, it will be competent for the High Court of Madras to entertain the writ petition on the basis of clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution as well. 10. Appellants have approached this Court with the plea that no part of the cause of action had taken place within the State of Tamil Nadu. Assuming that the above statement of the appellants is true, would it in any way affect the jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras under Article 227 or clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution? The answer must be in the negative. Added to the above jurisdictional factors, the High Court competent to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of Crl.P.C. and to quash the proceedings of the Criminal Court at Erode so as to present failure of justice or abuse of the process of that subordinate Court, is the High Court of Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for consideration in Krishnakumar Menon's case was whether complaint filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Mumbai, could be quashed or set aside by this Court in exercise of the inherent power provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A Division Bench of this Court while affirming the judgments of the Single Bench in Chellappan v. Chandulal (1980 KLT 411) and Sreethara Kamath v. Jawala Prasad Guptha (1970 KLT 45) held that a pending matter in a court under the jurisdiction of another High Court cannot be quashed by the Kerala High Court by using inherent powers provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While laying down the law as above, the Division Bench observed that the matter may be different in a petition under Article 226 is concerned, where part of the cause of action has arisen in the State where the High Court is having jurisdiction. But this was made as a passing observations, because the Division Bench was not considering in Krishnakumar Menon's case the propriety of entertaining a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the proceedings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
