2000 (9) TMI 925 - SC - Indian Laws

Article 226 permits writ petition where part of cause of action arose locally despite FIR registered elsewhere, jurisdiction affirmed

SC held the Bombay HC possessed jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition despite an FIR registered in another State. The Court ruled ... Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226 - 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 petitioner had prayed for quashing the complaint filed against him by J.B. Holdings Ltd. at Shillong? - Held that:- e 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 the 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. In the present case, a large number of events have taken place at Bombay in respect of the allegations contained in the FIR registered at Shillong. If the averments in the writ petition are correct, then the major portion of the facts which led to the registering of the FIR have taken place at Bombay. It is unnecessary to repeat those events over again as Mohapatra, J. has adverted to them with precision and the needed details. 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. 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.