Territorial jurisdiction for quashing FIRs turns on where the cause of action substantially arose, not mere communications.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash FIRs depends on where the substantial cause of action arose, and mere communication of SEBI-related material to Chennai was held insufficient when the alleged conspiracy and core events occurred in Kolkata. Because the offence-linked facts arose outside the High Court's jurisdiction, the writ petitions failed; the Court also declined to quash the FIRs or interrupt the ongoing investigation, noting that the complaints disclosed serious allegations requiring full inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs. (ii) Whether the FIRs should be quashed or interference made at the stage of ongoing investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petitions seeking quashing of the FIRs.

Analysis: The FIRs were registered at Kolkata on complaints relating to an alleged conspiracy, circular trading, wrongful gains, and loss to the Calcutta Stock Exchange and related entities. The materials placed before the Court showed that the alleged criminal acts and the core events constituting the complaints arose within Kolkata. Mere communication of SEBI-related matters to the company's office at Chennai was held insufficient to create a part of the cause of action within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction. The Court also distinguished the precedents relied on by the petitioner on the facts, holding that they did not assist the petitioner because no material event giving rise to the offence was shown to have occurred within Chennai.

Conclusion: The High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIRs should be quashed or interference made at the stage of ongoing investigation.

Analysis: The Court found that the complaints, FIRs, and the Joint Parliamentary Committee material disclosed serious allegations requiring full investigation. It held that, in the absence of territorial jurisdiction, it was unnecessary to examine the merits in detail. The Court further noted that the investigation was still in progress and that it would not be proper to stall or interfere with it at that stage.

Conclusion: The FIRs were not quashed and no interference was made with the ongoing investigation.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the alleged offences were found to have arisen outside the Court's territorial jurisdiction, and the investigation was allowed to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: In writ proceedings seeking quashing of criminal proceedings, territorial jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action for the alleged offence substantially arises, and the Court will not interfere with an ongoing investigation when the core events lie outside its jurisdiction.

---