Territorial jurisdiction and interim protection were upheld where a civil dispute was given criminal colour through FIR and ECIR proceedings.

Territorial jurisdiction was upheld because the ECIR was treated as consequential to the FIR lodged within the court's territorial limits, so the objection based only on the ECIR's Delhi registration failed. Interim protection was then granted because the dispute appeared prima facie civil in nature, the criminal process seemed to be used as pressure, and the informant had not first pursued civil remedies. Relying on earlier protective directions, the court stayed further proceedings in the FIR and ECIR against the petitioners and barred coercive action pending further hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection to the Court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition was sustainable; (ii) whether the petitioners had made out a case for interim protection by staying further proceedings in the FIR and the consequential ECIR.

Issue (i): Whether the objection to the Court's territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition was sustainable.

Analysis: The challenge to territorial jurisdiction was founded on the registration of the ECIR at Delhi. The Court held that the ECIR was consequential to the FIR lodged at Greater Noida, which was within its territorial jurisdiction. The jurisdictional objection was therefore examined with reference to the connection between the FIR and the ECIR and the governing legal position relied upon by the Court.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was overruled.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners had made out a case for interim protection by staying further proceedings in the FIR and the consequential ECIR.

Analysis: The Court found a prima facie civil dispute had been given a criminal colour and noted that the informant had not pursued civil remedies before initiating the FIR. It relied on the settled principle that criminal process should not be used to pressure parties in essentially civil disputes. The Court also noted the interim protection earlier granted by the Supreme Court and its direction that no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners pending disposal of the writ proceedings. On that basis, the Court considered the continuation of coercive criminal proceedings against the petitioners unjustified at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Interim stay of further proceedings in the FIR and ECIR, insofar as they concerned the petitioners, was granted and no coercive action was permitted against them.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded at the interim stage, with the criminal proceedings kept in abeyance against the petitioners while the matter remained pending for further pleadings and hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dispute is prima facie civil in nature and the impugned criminal proceedings appear to be a means of pressure, interim protection by staying coercive steps may be granted, particularly when supported by prior protective directions from the Supreme Court.

---