Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Asifoddin And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.201810 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.201458 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP.NO.201810/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED ASIFODDIN
S/O SHABBIRODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT 7-4-127,
Digitally signed by SHAMSIA COONY, RAWAHEL GALLI,
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR BIDAR- 585401, KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH NOW RESIDING AT ABU DHABI,
COURT OF UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
KARNATAKA
2. TABASSUM SAYED RIYAZUDDIN
C/O MOHAMMED SAIFUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO.
7-4-127, SHAMSIA COLONY, R4AWAHEL GALLI,
BIDAR 585401, KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION CHOWBARA ROAD,
BIDAR KARNATAKA,
REPTD BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI- 585103
2. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
BY THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS 5TH FLOOR,
C BLOCK, LOK BHAVAN, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH 226001
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS 9TH FLOOR, TOWER-2,
GOMTINAGAR EXT., SHAHID PATH, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH- 226002,
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RANA PRATAP MARG, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GUDAMBA POLICE STATION, LUCKNOW NORTH
(COMMISSIONERATE LUCKNOW) LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH- 226021
6. MS. ANKURITA SHARMA
D/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDENT AT PAYAGPUR BHUPGANJ BAZAR,
MASOODPUR BHARAICH
DISTRICT UTTAR PRADESH- 271871,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED
13.05.2024 BEARING CRIME NO. 0184/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A REGISTERED BY THE GUDAMBA PS, LUCKNOW DISTRICT,
UTTAR PRADESH UNDER SECTION 498-A, 313, AND 323 IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE-VII, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH AND ALL OTHER
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE
POLICE PROTECTIONS TO THE PETITIONER.
IN WP.NO. 201458/2024:
BETWEEN:
FAHEEM ALIAS MOHD FAHEEMUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHD. SHABBIRUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDING AT,
7/4/127, SHAMSIYA COLONY,
ROHELE GALLI, BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHOWBARA ROAD,
BIDAR KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI,
KARNATAKA-585103.
2. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
BY THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
5TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK,
LOK BHAVAN, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
9TH FLOOR, TOWER-2,
GOMTINAGAR EXT.,
SHAHID PATH, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226002.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RANA PRATAP MARG,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GUDAMBA POLICE STATION,
LUCKNOW NORTH (COMMISSIONEERATE LUCKNOW)
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226021.
6. MS. ANUKURITA SHARMA
D/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT PAYAGPUR,
BHUPGANJ BAZAR,
MASOODPUR,
BAHRAICH DISTRICT,
UTTAR PRADESH-271871.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED
13.05.2024 BEARING CRIME NO. 0184/2024 REGISTERED
BY THE GUDAMBA PS, LUCKNOW DISTRICT, UTTAR
PRADESH UNDER SECTION 498-A, 313, AND 323 IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE-VII, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHER ALL UTTAR SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS QUA THE
PETITIONER; THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE OFFICIALS
TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Sanjay A Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Notice issued to respondent No.2 is not returned nor acknowledgment received. Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 6 is not yet ordered.
3. The present writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash and set-aside the FIR dated 13.05.2024 bearing Crime No.0184/2024 vide Annexure- A registered by Gudamba PS, Lucknow District, Uttar Pradesh under Sections 498A, 313 and 323 IPC pending on the file of the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and all other subsequent proceedings against the petitioners and to direct respondent No.1 police officials to provide police protections to the petitioners. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. This Court heard regarding maintainability of the petitions in view of the prayer referred to supra.
5. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:
Respondent No.6-Ms.Ankurita Sharma, claiming to be the wife of Mohammed Asifoddin-petitioner No.1 in WP No.201810/2024 filed a complaint with Gudamba Police Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 313 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that respondent No.6 came in contact with Mohammed Asifoddin in Bahrain wherein there was physical relationship and on insistence for marriage, she was insisted to convert herself to Islam and thereafter, marriage took place on 13.02.2024. She became pregnant and after completion of five months pregnancy, Mohammed Asifoddin sent her to Mumbai in the pretext of medical treatment at Salwa Hospital, Chembur, Mumbai.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR
7. It is her specific allegation that it was a clever sketch of cheating on her and Mohammed Asifoddin instructed the doctors to abort the pregnancy.
8. Thereafter, at the instructions of Mohammed Asifoddin, she had visited his house at Bidar wherein brother-in-law by name Faheem and other brothers and sisters tortured her mentally, and physically assaulted her. Being unable to bear the torture, she had to leave the house. Therefore, she sought for action.
9. The Gudamba police registered the case in FIR No.184/2024 and case is now pending for investigation. In the meantime, petitioners herein have filed the present petitions seeking quashing of the pending FIR.
10. Grounds urged in the petitions are as under:
The allegations in the FIR taken in its entirety do not make out a case whatsoever against the Petitioners herein. The action of the Respondent No.5 Police in the institution of the FIR and dragging the name of the Petitioners have caused serious threat to the life and liberty of the Petitioners and hence violative of Article-21 of the Constitution of India.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR That the facts elicited from the Complaint dated 12.05.2024 are devoid of criminality as regards the Petitioners herein. The Respondent No.6 has given a criminal colour to a family matter only so as to harass the petitioners, which is nothing but abuse of process of law.
That the allegations in the FIR and the Complaint dated 12.05.2024 if taken into consideration the allegations against the Petitioners herein do not prima facie establish any offence much less the offences as alleged in the FIR and the chances of a conviction against the Petitioners herein are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to be continued against the Petitioners.
That no allegations of any kind are attracted against the Petitioners for the offences U/Secs.498- A, 313 and 323 IPC.
That the cause of action as per the complaint dated 12.05.2024 and the FIR dated 13.05.2024 arose in Bidar, Karnataka against Petitioners and this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
No incident as alleged in the Complaint dated 12.05.2024 and FIR dated 13.05.2024 took place in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Hence no cause of action ever arose in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR Further, the Respondent No.5 Police/Court at Lucknow in the state of Uttar Pradesh has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate/try the offences alleged in the FIR whereof cause of action, admittedly as per complaint, arose in the district of Bidar in the state of Karnataka and not in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
That the alleged threats were made in Bidar, Karnataka and the Petitioners is a permanent resident of Bidar, Karnataka.
That as per the complaint dated 12.05.2024, the place of residence mentioned is Payagpur, Bhupganj Bazar, Masoodpur, Bahraich District, Uttar Pradesh- 271871, which is separate district and approximately 150 kms away from Lucknow."
11. Sri Sanjay A Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, this Court has got jurisdiction to maintain the petitions seeking quashing of pending FIR before Gudamba Police Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
12. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR (1994)4 SCC 711 wherein, at paragraph 5, it has been held as under:
"5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante clause -- notwithstanding anything in Article 32 -- and provides that every High Court shall have power "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, "within those territories" directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose. Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. On a plain reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least a part of the cause of action had arisen within the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case in the writ petition.
6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action"
means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR (1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said:
"... the cause of action has no relation whatever to the defence which may be set up by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff. It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words, to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour."
Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration albeit without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in question even on the facts alleged must depend upon whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR 26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court."
13. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds urged in the petitions and also contends that very filing of the petitions before this Court seeking intervention in the matter and quashing the pending FIR registered by Gudamba Police, Lucknow, Uttara Pradesh, itself is not maintainable.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in (1994)4 SCC 711 the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India has ruled that the High Court may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action wholly or partly has arisen within territorial over which it exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding with the seat of such Authority or Government.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR
16. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a civil matter and therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of different High Courts was not an embargo to exercise the power under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
17. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in (1994)4 SCC 711 case was reiterated in Navinchandra N Majithia vs. State of Maharastra and others reported in (2000)7 SCC 640.
18. But it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that in respect of criminal matters it is the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court where the criminal case is registered would have the power to exercise either under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and now under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita-2023.
19. Any other view if taken, would only result in a great chaos in administration of criminal justice system.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. Except for the consideration of the request for transit bail all other actions are to be taken by the jurisdictional criminal Court.
21. Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is retained in verbatim in Section 6 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita-2023, dealt with Classes of Criminal Courts wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that, besides the High Courts in every State there shall be Courts of Session, Judicial Magistrates of the First Class, Judicial Magistrates of the Second Class and Executive Magistrates of the Criminal Courts.
22. Each of such Criminal Courts are defined with specific territorial jurisdiction.
23. Therefore, exercising any power by this Court in respect of FIR registered before the Gudamba Police Station, Lucknow District, Uttara Pradesh, would be without power and such a petition cannot be entertained.
24. Accordingly, the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168 WP No. 201810 of 2024 C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.
(ii) However dismissal of the present petitions shall not preclude the petitioners to seek their remedy before appropriate Court in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17