2009 (2) TMI 914 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioners invoked Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a complaint registered as FIR I-C.R. No. 92 of 2008 at Jaipur City (South) Mahila Thana, Rajasthan, for alleged offences u/s 498-A and 406 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the complainant's husband and his parents, alleging events in Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh.

Jurisdictional Issue:
The preliminary issue of territorial jurisdiction of the High Court was addressed first. The husband and wife, both in Indian Administrative Services, were married in Jaipur, following which they pursued their careers separately in Gujarat and Mussoorie. Disputes arose, leading to a divorce petition and the impugned complaint in Rajasthan. The petitioners argued that the complaint was an afterthought, filed in Rajasthan due to the complainant's influential father, while most events occurred in Gujarat. The Court considered the cause of action, emphasizing that even if a part of it arises in a different state, that state's High Court may have jurisdiction.

Legal Precedents:
Counsel cited judgments emphasizing that the place where the alleged offence occurred is crucial for determining territorial jurisdiction. The Court noted that the cause of action for quashing the FIR arose in Rajasthan, where it was registered, even if consequences were felt in Gujarat. The distinction between the cause for filing a complaint and the cause for quashing it was highlighted, with the Court dismissing the petition solely on jurisdictional grounds.

Judicial Discipline:
The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discipline, cautioning against multiple High Courts intervening in cases with events spanning different states. It stressed that only the High Court where the complaint is filed or the criminal case is pending should entertain related petitions to avoid conflicting directions.

Conclusion:
The petition was summarily dismissed based on jurisdictional grounds, without delving into the merits of the case. The Court emphasized that the cause of action for quashing the FIR was deemed to have arisen exclusively in Rajasthan, despite events occurring in multiple states, and rejected arguments of forum shopping or ulterior motives.