9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ited having its business place at Manali, Chennai. For the purpose of expansion plans of the said company, the petitioner was in need of funds to the tune of Rs.75,00,00,000/-. The petitioner approached the 4th respondent for funding and finally an understanding was reached between the 4th respondent and the petitioner. As per the understanding, the 4th respondent will provide Rs.50,00,00,000/- as loan on condition that the petitioner shall obtain investment of Rs.25,00,00,000/- through equity. 3. The 3rd respondent is yet another company having its registered office at 168, Atlanta, Nariman Point, Mumbai and one Mr.Raju Bhimrao Shinde was working as a legal assistant in the said company. The Chairman of the said company is one Mr.Inderchand Jain. The said company is mainly dealing with providing loans / share capital from the banks and financial institutions to the companies who need loans / share capital. 4. The petitioner company, after having entered into an agreement with the State Bank of India, the 4th respondent herein, as enumerated herein above, during the months of August and September 2011, approached the Chairman of the 3rd respondent company and apprised him about t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al from M/s.C.V.C. Fund Limited, the fifth respondent. In the meanwhile, out of the commission of 3% as already assured, the petitioner had paid Rs.7,00,000/-. Had the agreement been continued and honoured, the third respondent would have got Rs.75,00,000/- as commission for getting share capital of Rs.25,00,00,000/- from M/s.C.V.C. Fund Limited. Now the third respondent has suffered financial loss of Rs.68,00,000/-. This act of the petitioner, according to the third respondent, amounts to cheating. 7. With these allegations, Mr.Raju Bhimrao Shinde, the legal assistant of the third respondent company, made a private complaint to the 8th Court at Esplanade, in Mumbai, who in turn referred the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the first respondent police. On the said complaint, now the first respondent has registered a case in M.E.C.R.No.3 of 2014 under Section 420 of I.P.C. against the petitioner. Seeking to quash the said F.I.R., the petitioner is before this Court with this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Lakshminarayanan and Mr.Sumit Patni, le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de of Criminal Procedure. In that case, the criminal case was registered by the police at Shillong and that was sought to be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegation that the entire cause of action for registration of the case had happened only in Mumbai and no part of cause of action had occurred in the State of Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court by judgment dated 23.03.1999, dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the quashing of the F.I.R. filed in Meghalaya by the Bombay High Court would be without jurisdiction. 13. When this conclusion of the Bombay High Court was examined by a two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was obviously concerned only with Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave emphasis to clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: "Clause 2 of Article 226: .....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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution in respect of any step taken or to be taken pursuant to the FIR registered by the Shillong Police in the State of Meghalaya ?" 17. After having considered various other judgments, in paragraph 43, the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.T.Thomas has held as follows: "43. We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another State or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therein. The place of residence of a person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of action in that particular writ petition. The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts in each case." 18. From the above judgment, it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Courts in the following words:- "The power of the High Court to issue writs under article 226 of the Constitution is subject to the twofold limitation that such writs cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction and the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court either by residence or location within the territories subject to its jurisdiction." 23. After the above authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was made manifest that the jurisdiction of the High Court, for the purpose of Article 226, can be tested on the basis of the residence or location of the person or authority. The Parliament took note of the difficulties experienced by the citizens on account of the above constitution bench judgement to have access to constitutional remedies under writ jurisdiction of the High Courts and, therefore, it decided to amend the Constitution of India. Accordingly, by means of 15th Amendment to the Constitution of India, clause (1A) was added to Article 226. The same has been reproduced and renumbered as clause (2) of Article 226 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction" 27. From the above settled position of law, it is crystal clear that for the purpose of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the light of clause (2) of Article 226, it is the cause of action, either in full or in part, which confers jurisdiction upon the High Court concerned and not merely the situs of the authority or the person. 28. Now, the question is, "whether the concept of "cause of action" has got relevance to the criminal law, more particularly, for the purpose of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?" 29. The term "cause of action" is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 177 of the Code speaks of ordinary pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the cause of action. 33. In Navinchandra N.Majithia case (cited supra) the term "cause of action" has been referred to as though it has got relevance to the criminal law. The Division Bench in the said judgment has interchangeably used the term "cause of action" for the term "place of commission of the crime". In the said judgment, though Hon'ble Justice K.T.Thomas, has made reference to Section 2(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not specifically dealt with the question as to whether the term "cause of action" has got any relevance to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 34. Subsequently, a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three Judges in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 had occasion to notice the said judgment of the earlier Division Bench in Navinchandra N.Majithia case (cited supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the territorial jurisdiction for filing a complaint for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 35. Interestingly, the term "cause of action" is employed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... marshalling evidence and witnesses, rests with the State. Therefore, while the convenience of the Defendant in a civil action may be relevant, the convenience of the so called complainant/victim has little or no role to play in criminal prosecution. Keeping in perspective the presence of the word "ordinarily" in Section 177 of CrPC, we hasten to adumbrate that the exceptions to it are contained in the CrPC itself, that is, in the contents of the succeeding Section 178. The CrPC also contains an explication of "complaint" as any allegation to a Magistrate with a view to his taking action in respect of the commission of an offence; not being a police report. Prosecution ensues from a Complaint or police report for the purpose of determining the culpability of a person accused of the commission of a crime; and unlike a civil action or suit is carried out (or "prosecuted") by the State or its nominated agency. The principal definition of "prosecution" imparted by Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition is "(a) criminal action; the proceeding instituted and carried on by due process of law, before a competent Tribunal, for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of a person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than where the crime is committed, it is the latter which will remain the place for its prosecution." 38. From the above judgment of the larger Bench, now it is crystal clear that what is relevant for the High Court to entertain a petition under Section 482, is not the cause of action as the term "cause of action" is foreign to criminal law. In Navinchandra N.Majithia case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not dealt with the question as to whether the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code could be exercised beyond the territorial limits of the High Court. As I have already pointed out, the Court only held that writ jurisdiction could be exercised beyond the territorial limits provided either the cause of action in full or in part has occurred outside the jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. 39. As we have already noticed, before the introduction of Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as per the Constitution Bench judgment in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao, reported in AIR 1953 SC 210 the jurisdiction was based only on the situs of the person or authority concerned against whom writ or order is to be issued. The jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
