Inherent jurisdiction and territorial filing in company prosecution led to quashing of Chennai criminal proceedings.

Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was invoked to challenge criminal proceedings in EOCC.No.104/2016 arising from a complaint under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013. The dispute concerned whether the Chennai complaint should continue where the petitioner said several companies were outside Chennai jurisdiction and relied on struck-off company status and resigned directorships, while the respondent maintained that only two companies were within Chennai and the rest lay in Coimbatore. The Court held that the complainant must explain why the matter was originally filed at Chennai and, if pursued elsewhere, place those reasons before the competent court, where the petitioner could contest them. The Chennai proceedings were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings in EOCC.No.104/2016 pending at Chennai should be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the location of the companies and the circumstances stated for filing the complaint.

Analysis: The petition invoked inherent powers to question the continuation of the prosecution. The complaint had been filed under Section 165 of the Companies Act, 2013. The respondent stated that only two of the companies were within Chennai jurisdiction and the remaining companies were within Coimbatore jurisdiction, while the petitioner pointed to struck-off companies, resigned directorships, and the nature of certain companies. The Court did not direct the complainant to file a fresh complaint at Coimbatore, but held that it was for the complainant to explain why the matter was originally lodged at Chennai and, if pursued elsewhere, to place those reasons before the competent court, where the petitioner would be free to controvert them.

Conclusion: The proceedings at Chennai were quashed, and the petition was allowed.

---