https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304690 A High Court should ordinarily decline Article 226 jurisdiction to quash proceedings pending before a subordinate criminal court under the superintendence of another High Court, even if part of the cause of action is alleged to have arisen within its territory. The more appropriate forum is the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over that subordinate court, with Article 227 and, where necessary, Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC powers. Parallel proceedings before different High Courts over the same subordinate court action are undesirable because they may produce conflicting results. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable before the Kerala High Court and the parties were directed to approach the Madras High Court. en-us Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2022 10:41:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304690 A High Court should ordinarily decline Article 226 jurisdiction to quash proceedings pending before a subordinate criminal court under the superintendence of another High Court, even if part of the cause of action is alleged to have arisen within its territory. The more appropriate forum is the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction over that subordinate court, with Article 227 and, where necessary, Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC powers. Parallel proceedings before different High Courts over the same subordinate court action are undesirable because they may produce conflicting results. On that basis, the writ petition was held not maintainable before the Kerala High Court and the parties were directed to approach the Madras High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304690