TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court quashes jurisdiction error in writ petition over First Information Reports, grants future challenges directive.</h1> <h3>C.B.I. ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, MUMBAI Versus. NARAYAN DIWAKAR</h3> C.B.I. ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, MUMBAI Versus. NARAYAN DIWAKAR - 1999 AIR 2362, 1999 (4) SCC 656, 1999 (3) JT 635, 1999 (3) SCALE 517 Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court to entertain and decide the writ petition.2. Validity of quashing the First Information Reports by the High Court.Jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court:The Supreme Court considered whether the Gauhati High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent. The respondent, an officer of the Indian Administrative Service, filed the writ petition seeking to quash the First Information Reports lodged against him. The Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, asserting that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. The High Court held that the communication of a wireless message to the respondent at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh was part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition. However, the Supreme Court held that the Gauhati High Court was in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favor of the respondent. The Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable in the Gauhati High Court, and therefore, allowed the appeal, quashing the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench.Validity of Quashing First Information Reports:Another issue before the Supreme Court was the validity of quashing the First Information Reports by the High Court. The respondent, through his counsel, stated that he had no objection if the impugned judgment was quashed, allowing him to approach the competent court for redressal at an appropriate stage. The respondent sought an observation that any challenge to the First Information Reports and related proceedings would be decided without being influenced by the findings of the Gauhati High Court. The Supreme Court, based on the submissions made by the respondent's counsel, did not delve into the merits of the case but concluded that the Gauhati High Court was wrong in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the High Court were quashed, with a directive that any future proceedings challenging the First Information Reports should be decided independently of the previous findings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
