2007 (5) TMI 690 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
2. Transfer of Investigation from West Bengal to Uttar Pradesh.
3. Validity of the High Court's directions.
4. Compliance with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and criminal conspiracy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta:
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and breach of trust by the respondents. The complaint was directed to the Officer-in-Charge of Shakespeare Sarani Police Station, Kolkata, for investigation. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued non-bailable warrants of arrest. The appellant argued that the court had jurisdiction under Section 181(4) CrPC, as the property was to be accounted for within its jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the complaint did not disclose any cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. Transfer of Investigation from West Bengal to Uttar Pradesh:
The respondents filed a criminal writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the FIR and transfer the investigation to Uttar Pradesh. The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the FIR to be transmitted to the appropriate police station in Uttar Pradesh. The appellant argued that the High Court had no jurisdiction to transfer the investigation, as the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had already exercised judicial power. The respondents argued that the major part of the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh, justifying the transfer.

3. Validity of the High Court's Directions:
The Allahabad High Court directed the FIR to be transferred to Uttar Pradesh and restrained the arrest of the respondents until the submission of the chargesheet. The appellant contended that the High Court's direction was erroneous as it did not consider the jurisdictional provisions of Section 181(4) CrPC. The respondents argued that the High Court had the authority to transfer the investigation to ensure a fair and thorough investigation.

4. Compliance with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 181(4) CrPC provides that an offence of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust can be tried by the court within whose jurisdiction the property was to be accounted for. The appellant argued that the accused were bound by contract to account for the property in Calcutta, giving the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate jurisdiction. The respondents argued that the requirement to account must arise by law or contract, and no such averment was made in the complaint.

5. Allegations of Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Criminal Conspiracy:
The complaint alleged that the respondents committed various acts of breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, including misappropriation of funds and fraudulent preparation of documents. The appellant argued that fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy were essential ingredients of the offences, giving rise to a cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The respondents argued that the representations made were not fraudulent from the beginning and that the complaint was filed to harass them.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court held that the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC as part of the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. The High Court of Allahabad should not have interfered with the investigation. The investigation was to be carried out by the C.B.C.I.D. of Uttar Pradesh, and the report was to be forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, who would determine the question of jurisdiction. The appeal was disposed of with specific directions to ensure a fair and thorough investigation.