Quash on Jurisdiction
Court: Gujarat High Court
Bench: JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Jadeja vs State on 13 December, 2010
Law Point:
Quash on Jurisdiction
JUDGEMENT
1.0 By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the process issued against the petitioners by the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur, Assam on the complaint being Criminal Case No. 721 of 2002 filed by respondent no. 2 herein.
2.0 The petitioner no. 1 is the husband of respondent no. 2, while petitioner no. 3 is the brother and petitioner nos. 2 & 4 are the parents of petitioner no. 1. Respondent no. 2 filed complaint with the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur, Assam against the petitioners for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which was numbered as Criminal Case No. 721 of 2002.
2.1 On the said complaint, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur issued process to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court by way this petition.
3.0 Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the impugned complaint filed by respondent no. 2 before the Court of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur, Assam is not maintainable since it has no territorial jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. He has submitted that since the cause of action has arose in the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat, only a Court within the territory of the State of Gujarat, has jurisdiction to try the alleged offence. Hence, the order issuing process against the petitioners is required to be quashed and set aside.
4.0 Learned Advocate for respondent no. 2 contended that the trial Court in the State of Assam has concurrent territorial jurisdiction to try the case since the facts constituting the alleged offence prima facie disclose that though the cause of action originally arose in the State of Gujarat, its consequences has continued to the State of Assam. Therefore, the trial Court in the State of Assam was justified in issuing process against the petitioners. Hence, no interference is required by this Court in this petition.
5.0 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue involved in this petition pertains to the powers and scope of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said provision provides powers to this Court to issue certain Writs, which reads as under;
?S226.
Power of High Courts to issue certain writs –
(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.??
……..
(4) ……..
5.1 From the provision in clause (2) of Article 226, it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of a writ petition depends on whether the cause of action for filing the impugned complaint arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. In legal parlance, the expression ’cause of action’ is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. [Black’s Law Dictionary].
5.2 In the present case, the marriage between respondent no. 2 and petitioner no. 1 took place on 16.05.2002 in the State of Gujarat. However, on account of certain matrimonial disputes, respondent no. 2 left for her parental home, which is in the State of Assam, on 18.10.2002 and, thereafter, filed the impugned complaint before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur, Assam in respect of the alleged offence. From the averments made in the petition as also the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent no. 2, it appears that the major portion of the facts, which led to the filing of the impugned complaint, has taken in the State of Gujarat. Except the telephonic conversations that took place between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2, there is nothing on record to show that the cause of action had continued to the State of Assam. Undoubtedly, a major part of the investigation of the case has to be conducted in the State of Gujarat and, therefore, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
6.0 It would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N.
Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2966. In that case, a similar question was raised as to whether a Writ can run beyond the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court. The Apex Court held that Writ can run beyond territorial jurisdiction of the High Court if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of that High Court.
7.0 Similar principle has been laid down in a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case ofY. Abraham Ajith & ors v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & anr reported in (2004) 8 S.C.C. 100 wherein on the facts of the case, it was held that the Magistrate concerned had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter as no part of cause of action for initiation of proceedings against accused arose within his local jurisdiction.
8.0 From the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the mere fact that the complaint was registered in the State of Assam, is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen, even partly, within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of this Court. What is required to be ascertained is as to whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court’s jurisdiction or not and from the facts of the case, it does appear that a major portion of the cause of action has arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
9.0 When the aforesaid legal principles are applied to the case on hand, the inevitable conclusion is that no part of the cause of action, except that of few telephonic conversations, arose in the State of Assam and, therefore, the Court concerned has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Hence, the process issued against the petitioners is required to be quashed and set aside.
10.0 In the result, the petition is allowed. The process issued against the petitioners by the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonitpur at Tezpur, Assam on the complaint being Criminal Case No. 721 of 2002 filed by respondent no. 2 is quashed and set aside. The impugned complaint be returned to respondent no. 2, who if she so chooses, may file the same in the appropriate Court, to be dealt with in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.