2015 (1) TMI 1487 - HC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court - Does the inherent power of this Court, saved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, extend beyond the territorial limits of this Court so as to quash an F.I.R. registered within the territorial limits of another High Court? - civil law concept of cause of action could be imported to criminal law or not - HELD THAT - From the judgment in Navinchandra N.Majithia case 2000 (9) TMI 925 - SUPREME COURT , it is crystal clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction a part of cause of action has arisen has also got jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition in view of Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, though the situs of the authority against whom the writ petition has been filed is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said High Court - The said view in Navinchandra N.Majithia case has been reiterated subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalekar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2009 (1) TMI 936 - SUPREME COURT . Under Section 26 of the Code, subject to the other provisions of the Code, any offence under the Indian Penal Code may be tried by the High Court. From this provision, it is manifestly clear that the High Court can try an offence under the Indian Penal Code if the same has been committed either in full or in part within the territorial limits of the Said High Court. So far as the power of the High Court to entertain an appeal, revision, reference or petition for transfer is concerned, the situs of the Subordinate Court / Magistrate whose proceedings or order which is under challenge gives the jurisdiction to the High Court. So far as the inherent power saved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it has not been either expressly or impliedly stated that the power can be exercised beyond the territorial limits of the High Court based on the cause of action. So far as the territorial jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, it is akin to Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it stood prior to the introduction of Clause 2 of Article 226. When 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 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to add provision like Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India extending the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of 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. So far as the power under Section 482 of 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 Article 226 of 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 2014 (8) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Court has held that the concept of cause of action which is relevant to Civil Law cannot be imported to Criminal Law. In the instant case, though it may be true that a part of offence has been committed within the State of Tamil Nadu, since the situs of the authority who has registered the crime falls outside the territorial limits of this Court, this petition is not at all maintainable before this Court. This petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure extends beyond its territorial limits to quash an FIR registered in another High Court's jurisdiction.
2. Whether the civil law concept of "cause of action" can be imported into criminal law.
3. Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked to quash an FIR registered outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
The primary issue was whether the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure extends beyond its territorial limits to quash an FIR registered in another High Court's jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that part of the cause of action arose in Chennai, thus conferring jurisdiction to the Madras High Court. The court examined the jurisprudence and concluded that for the purpose of Section 482, the jurisdiction is determined by the situs of the authority who registered the case, not by the place of commission of the crime. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Navinchandra N. Majithia, which dealt with Article 226 but clarified that it did not extend to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

2. Importing Civil Law Concept of "Cause of Action" into Criminal Law
The court addressed whether the civil law concept of "cause of action" could be imported into criminal law. It noted that the term "cause of action" is foreign to the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, which emphasized that the concept of "cause of action" pertinent to civil law is not applicable to criminal law. The court concluded that the jurisdiction for criminal matters is based on the place of commission of the crime and the situs of the authority, not on the cause of action.

3. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226
The court also considered whether its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked to quash an FIR registered outside its territorial jurisdiction. The court discussed the historical context and amendments to Article 226, specifically Clause 2, which allows High Courts to exercise jurisdiction where the cause of action arises. However, it clarified that this extension applies to writ jurisdiction and not to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court reaffirmed that its writ jurisdiction does not extend to quashing criminal cases pending in authorities outside its territorial limits.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition for want of territorial jurisdiction, emphasizing that the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 do not extend beyond the territorial limits of the High Court based on the cause of action. The court concluded that the only criterion for jurisdiction under Section 482 is the situs of the authority who registered the case. Consequently, the petition and the connected miscellaneous petition were dismissed.