2003 (3) TMI 552 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction to quash FIRs.
2. Maintainability of the writ petitions.
3. Alleged involvement of the petitioner in the scam.
4. Alternative remedies available to the petitioner.
5. Interim orders and conditions imposed by the court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction to Quash FIRs:
The primary issue in this case is whether the High Court of Madras has the territorial jurisdiction to quash FIRs Nos. 476 and 300 filed by the Detective Department, Kolkata. The petitioner argued that since DSQ Software Limited is registered in Chennai and the SEBI's order of cancellation was communicated to Chennai, part of the cause of action arose in Chennai. However, the court found that the cause of action arose wholly within Kolkata, where the Calcutta Stock Exchange and the Stock Holding Corporation of India Limited are situated. The court concluded that merely receiving a communication in Chennai does not confer jurisdiction to the High Court of Madras.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:
The respondents contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable as the High Court of Madras lacks territorial jurisdiction. The court agreed, emphasizing that the main factor in determining jurisdiction for a criminal offence is the place where the alleged offence was committed. The court referred to the complaints filed under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to conclude that no part of the cause of action arose in Chennai.

3. Alleged Involvement of the Petitioner in the Scam:
The petitioner argued that he had no involvement in the alleged scam and that the FIRs do not disclose any case against him. The respondents, however, presented evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving the petitioner and other accused to cheat the Calcutta Stock Exchange and its investors. The court noted the findings of the Joint Parliamentary Committee, which indicated the petitioner's involvement in a nationwide security scam affecting the economy. The court emphasized that these allegations need to be fully investigated by the concerned agency.

4. Alternative Remedies Available to the Petitioner:
The respondents argued that the petitioner should have sought relief from the High Court of Calcutta under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court supported this view, noting that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedies available under the statute. The court also referred to previous orders in criminal original petitions where the petitioner was directed to surrender before the court having jurisdiction.

5. Interim Orders and Conditions Imposed by the Court:
The court highlighted previous interim orders granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, including the requirement to surrender before the court having jurisdiction. These conditions indicated the petitioner's awareness that the High Court of Madras lacked jurisdiction. The court also referred to an order by the Bombay High Court in a related case, which supported the respondents' claim that the appropriate court for seeking relief is in Kolkata.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Madras dismissed both writ petitions, concluding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to quash the FIRs. The court emphasized the need for a thorough investigation into the allegations and found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing investigation. Consequently, all connected petitions were also dismissed.