Territorial jurisdiction and interim protection in a civil financial dispute dressed as criminal proceedings were upheld.

A territorial-jurisdiction objection to a writ challenge against a consequential ECIR was rejected because the ECIR arose from an FIR lodged within the Court's territorial jurisdiction, making the challenge maintainable before that forum. On interim relief, the Court found a prima facie civil financial transaction had been given a criminal colour and relied on protection already extended in similar matters to hold that interim protection against coercive action was justified. The petitioners were therefore granted limited interim relief, while the challenge remained pending for further consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the territorial-jurisdiction objection to entertaining the writ petition and the connected challenge to the consequential ECIR was sustainable; (ii) whether interim protection restraining coercive action against the petitioners ought to be granted.

Issue (i): whether the territorial-jurisdiction objection to entertaining the writ petition and the connected challenge to the consequential ECIR was sustainable.

Analysis: The ECIR was registered as a consequence of the FIR lodged within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The challenge to the ECIR was therefore linked to the FIR registered at Greater Noida in Uttar Pradesh, and the objection that only another High Court could be approached was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The territorial-jurisdiction objection was overruled.

Issue (ii): whether interim protection restraining coercive action against the petitioners ought to be granted.

Analysis: The dispute was found, prima facie, to arise out of a civil financial transaction dressed up as a criminal case. Reliance was placed on the protection already extended in similar matters by the Supreme Court and by a co-ordinate Division Bench, and it was held that the petitioners had made out a fit case for interim protection against further proceedings and coercive steps.

Conclusion: Interim protection was granted and coercive action against the petitioners was stayed.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners secured limited interim relief, while the challenge remained pending for further consideration by the Division Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a criminal proceeding is, on a prima facie view, a civil financial dispute given a criminal colour, and the impugned ECIR is consequential to an FIR within the Court's territorial jurisdiction, interim protection against coercive action may be granted and the jurisdictional objection rejected.

---