Territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases depends on the real cause of action, not incidental Kerala-linked facts.

Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 in criminal matters depends on whether the facts relied on form an integral part of the cause of action; incidental facts such as a party's office location or receipt of cheques are insufficient. For a challenge to a complaint and cognizance order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevant jurisdiction ordinarily follows the place where the offence arose, consistent with Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the admitted facts, the transaction, dishonoured cheques and alleged liability were rooted in West Bengal, and the Kerala-linked averments did not establish a real cause of action. The Kerala High Court therefore lacked territorial jurisdiction, and the writ challenge could not be maintained there.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Kerala High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint and the order taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 depends on facts forming an integral part of the cause of action, not on incidental facts such as the location of a party's office or receipt of cheques. In criminal matters, the relevant factor is ordinarily the place where the offence was committed, and the statutory scheme under Sections 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure points to the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence arose. The complaint and the admitted facts showed that the transaction, the dishonoured cheques, and the alleged liability were rooted in West Bengal, while the averments relied upon for Kerala jurisdiction did not constitute a real part of the cause of action. The High Court was therefore not the proper forum to challenge the cognizance order, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens also militated against interference.

Conclusion: The Kerala High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, and the challenge to the criminal proceedings could not be maintained there.

---