9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdictional conflict between states in criminal case investigation and the validity of invoking High Court jurisdiction for relief based on notice served in a different state. Analysis: The writ petitions sought relief from arrest in connection with a criminal case filed in Gujarat, despite the petitioners not being named in the FIR or subsequent documents. The primary contention was the service of a notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. within Uttar Pradesh, justifying High Court jurisdiction for relief. However, the cause of action clearly arose in Gujarat, involving allegations of setting up an illegal institution and issuing false certificates. The provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. emphasize the requirement of attendance within the jurisdiction where the notice is issued, not where the recipient resides. The Court highlighted the importance of cooperation with police investigations and dismissed the argument that fear of arrest based on another person's case warranted High Court interference. The petitioner's reliance on a judgment regarding territorial jurisdiction was deemed inapplicable since no part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh. The mere acceptance of notice in Uttar Pradesh did not establish jurisdiction unless linked to the cause of action. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments, emphasizing that the cause of action did not fall within Uttar Pradesh's jurisdiction. Reference to a previous judgment involving a different cause of action in Uttar Pradesh was deemed irrelevant to the present case. The Court concluded that the writ petitions lacked merit and dismissed them, vacating any interim orders. No costs were awarded, and a common judgment was issued for all related writ petitions.
|
