SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

A.M.Asha vs The State Represented By on 23 April, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.04.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

W.P.No.9128 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.9647 of 2019

1. A.M.Asha
2. P.Murali
3. A.B.M.Prabakar Balaji
4. A.B.M.Meenakumari
5. C.Vishnu Kumar … Petitioners

Vs.
1. The State Represented by
The Station House Officer,
Women Police Station,
Vizianagaram,
Viziznagaram District,
Andhra Pradesh State.

3. Prakruthi Sailaja … Respondents

PRAYER: Writ petition filed under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records of the first
respondent police in respect of the Final Report/Charge Sheet dated 21.09.2016
arising out of the Crime No.48 of 2016 in C.C.No.1198 of 2016, pending trial on
the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Vizianagaram
and quash the same and thereon restrain the first respondent or any other
investigation agency from taking any further step in respect of the complaint
lodged by the second respondent with the police authorities at Vizianagaram.
For Petitioners : Mr.A.Palaniappan
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.Mohammed Riyaz
Additional Public Prosecutor.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings in

C.C.No.1198 of 2016 pending trial on the file of the learned Additional Judicial

Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

the petitioners are arraigned as accused A2 to A6 in the proceedings arising out

of the Crime No.48 of 2016 registered for the offences under Sections 498A, Section506

of IPC r/w Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the Women

Police Station, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh and filed final report in

C.C.No.1198 of 2016, before the concerned jurisdictional Court viz., the learned

Additional Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh.

3. Before entering into the merits of the writ petition, whether this

Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition under SectionArticle 226 of

Constitution of India, challenging the proceeding in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the

file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate, Fast Class at Vizianagaram,

Andhra Pradesh?

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners cited various

judgement and submitted that this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the

quash petition, though pending before the outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in
3

He further submitted that the provisions under SectionArticle 226(2) of Constitution of

India provides that maintainable or otherwise the writ petition in the High Court

while issue whether the cause of action for filing the same of whole or in part of

the jurisdiction of the Court. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is

absolutely maintainable. He cited the judgement reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640

in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharastra and

others as follows :-

“27. Tested in the light of the principles laid
down in the cases noted above the judgment of
the High Court under challenge is unsustainable.

The High Court failed to consider all the relevant
facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on
the question of maintainability of the writ petition
on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The
Court based its decision on the sole consideration
that the complaint had filed the complaint at
Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the
petitioner had prayed for quashing the said
complaint. The High Court did not also consider the
alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a
writ of mandamus be issued to the State of
Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to Mumbai
Police. The High Court also did not take note of the
averments in the writ petition that filing of the
complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the
part of the complainant to harass and pressurise
the petitioners to reverse the transaction for
http://www.judis.nic.in
4

transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ
petition may be one of the relevant criteria for
consideration of the question but cannot be the
sole consideration in the matter. On the averments
made in the writ petition gist of which has been
noted earlier it cannot be said that no part of the
cause of action for filing the writ petition arose
within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High
Court.”

In the above case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had dealt consequential

prayer to transfer the investigation to other State. In the case on hand, the facts

are completely different and as such the case referred by the learned counsel for

the petitioners is not helpful for this case, since in the above case part of the

cause of action is laying with the Bombay High Court.

5. It is relevant to rely the judgment of this Court reported in 2016

SCC Online Mad 10078 in the case of Raman Ravi Vs. The State and

others as follows:-

“9. Mr.Nithyaesh Natraj made a valiant attempt
to distinguish the said judgment by citing various
authorities and the provisions of the Constitution.

Suffice it to say that the learned single Judge has
discussed the law in Navinchandra N Majithia’s case
(supra)and had come to the aforesaid conclusion,
based on the subsequent judgment of the larger
Benchof the Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh
http://www.judis.nic.in SectionRathod v. State of Maharashtra and another [(2014) 9
5

SCC 129]. It may be relevant to extract the following
paragraphs from S.Ilanahai’s case (supra):

“38. From the above judgment of the larger
Bench, now it is crystal clear that what is relevant for
the High Court to entertain a petition under Section
482,is not the cause of action as the term “cause of
action” is foreign to criminal law. In Navinchandra
N.Majithia case the Hon’ble Supreme Court had not
dealt with the question as to whether the power of
the High Court under Section 482of the Code could
be exercised beyond the territorial limits of the High
Court. As I have already pointed out, the Court only
held that writ jurisdiction could be exercised beyond
the territorial limits provided either the cause of
action in full or in part has occurred outside the
jurisdiction of the High Court concerned.

39. As we have already noticed, before the
introduction of Clause 2 of SectionArticle 226of the
Constitution of India, as per the Constitution Bench
judgment in SectionElection Commission, India v. Saka
Venkata Subba Rao, reported in AIR 1953 SC 210 the
jurisdiction was based only on the situs of the person
or authority concerned against whom writ or order is
to be issued. The jurisdiction was extended beyond
the territorial limits by the introduction of Clause 2 to
SectionArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India based on the
cause of action. So far as the territorial jurisdiction
under Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure
is concerned, it is akin to SectionArticle 226of the
Constitution of India as it stood prior to the
http://www.judis.nic.in
introduction of Clause 2 of SectionArticle 226. When
6

Parliament thought it fit, after the above Constitution
Bench judgment, to extend the writ jurisdiction of the
High Court beyond the territorial limits of the said
High Court, it did not think it appropriate, similarly to
amend Section 482of the Code of Criminal Procedure
so as to add provision like Clause 2 of SectionArticle 226of
the Constitution of India extending the inherent
power of the High Court under Section 482of the
Code of Criminal Procedure beyond the territorial
limits of the said High Court based on the fact that
the part of offence is committed outside the territorial
limits of the said High Court.

40. Thus, in my considered opinion, so far as
the power under Section 482of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. is
concerned, the only criteria is the situs of the
authority who has registered the case and not the
place of commission of the crime either in full or in
part. Similarly, the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
under SectionArticle 226of the Constitution to quash a
criminal case also does not extend beyond the
territorial limits of the said High Court if the case is
pending on the file of an authority who is located
outside the territorial limits of the said High Court.
This conclusion is inescapable, in view of the
authoritative pronouncement of the larger Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh
Rathod case (cited supra) wherein the Court has held
that the concept of “cause of action” which is
relevant to Civil Law cannot be imported to Criminal
http://www.judis.nic.in
Law.”

7

10. Despite the eloquence of Mr.Nithyaesh
Natraj, I am unable to persuade myself to disagree
with the conclusion arrived at by the learned single
Judge in S.Ilanahai’s case (supra).Even though I am
convinced that the FIR registered by Topsia Police
Station deserves to be quashed, yet,judicial discipline
demands that I should not trespass into the territorial
jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court and assume
the power to quash the FIR, especially in the light of
the reasoning given in S.Ilanahai’s case(supra), by
the single Judge of this Court.

11. It is brought to my notice that Ganesh
Venkateshwaran [A2] had filed a C.R.R.No.2764 of
2014 before the High Court at Calcutta for quashing
the FIR in this case and the learned single Judge, by
order dated22.09.2016, has given the following
finding:

“On reading and re-reading of the FIR, this
Court is prima facie satisfied that the allegations need
to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Thus,
considering the nature of the case and the argument
put forward by the learned Advocates appearing for
the parties and opinion of this Court as disclosed
above, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in
this revisional application to stall the investigation.

Thus, this revisional application under
Section397, read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, is disposed of on merits
upon hearing the opposite parties only. Thus, the
prayer for quashing of the F.I.R. stands rejected.”
http://www.judis.nic.in
8

12. If multiple writ petitions are admitted in
various High Courts, challenging the same
prosecution, there is every possibility of conflicting
orders being passed. Though I am of the view that
this FIR deserves to be quashed, yet, my brother
Judge in Calcutta seems to hold a totally different
view. This is one of the additional reasons for this
Court to keep its hands off and leave it to the High
Court, within whose jurisdiction, the FIR has been
registered, to deal with the matter, in accordance
with law.”

6. The facts remains that the second respondent lodged a complaint

before the Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Vizianagaram, Andhra

Pradesh and after completion of investigation, the first respondent filed a final

report before the jurisdictional Court and the same has been taken cognizance

for the offence under Sections 498A, Section506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 in C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram and it is pending for trial. Though

the petitioners are residing at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court

territory, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this Writ Petition, in view of

the above order passed by this Court, as discussed the law in Navinchandra N

Majithia’s case based on the subsequent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 in the case of Dashrath

Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another judgment reported
http://www.judis.nic.in
9

in 2015 (1) MWN (Cr.) 618 in the case of S.Ilanahai Vs. The State of

Maharashtra.

7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ

jurisdiction of this Court under SectionArticle 226 of Constitution of India, to quash the

criminal proceedings does not extend beyond the territorial jurisdiction limit of

the said High Court, if the case is pending on the file of an authority, who is

located out side the territorial limits of the said High Court. Therefore, this Court

has no jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition to quash the proceedings in

C.C.No.1198 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as this Court has no

jurisdiction and the petitioner is at liberty to approach the concerned

jurisdictional Court for appropriate relief. Consequently, connected miscellaneous

petition is closed. No costs.

23.04.2019
Internet:Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order

rts

http://www.judis.nic.in
10

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

rts
To

1. The Additional Judicial Magistrate Court,
First Class,
Vizianagaram,
Andhra Pradesh.

2. The Station House Officer,
Women Police Station,
Vizianagaram,
Viziznagaram District,
Andhra Pradesh State.

3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.

W.P.No.9128 of 2019
and W.M.P.No.9647 of 2019

23.04.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation