Madras High Court
M/S.Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Limited vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 June, 2012
Author: K.Chandru
Bench: K.Chandru
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.06.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.14585 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2012 M/s.Galaxy Amaze Kingdom Limited, rep by its Managing Director, M.Palanichamy, Iswarya Garden, No.14,Main Street, Venugopal Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai-600 062. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The State of Maharashtra, rep by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Kaiser-I hind Building, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001. 3.The State of Maharashtra, represented by the Assistant Inspector of Police, Boiser Police Station E.O.W., Bhayander (W) 10, Thane District, Maharashtra State. 4.M/s.Uday Structural's & Engineers, rep by its Chief Executive & Proprietor, Mr.Uday Kashinath Patil, residing at No.1/7, Margadharshan Society, Prof.N.S.Padake Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai. .. Respondents This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in FIR No.I-166/2011 now pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and quash the same as illegal and invalid and consequently to direct the first respondent to monitor his subordinates while accompanying that out State police officials for getting transit warrant before the concern magistrates against illegal detentions. For Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Menon - - - - ORDER
The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the FIR registered in FIR No.I-166/2011 lodged with the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and seeks to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu to monitor its subordinates while accompanying the police officials for getting transit warrant before the concerned Magistrates against any illegal detention.
2.Heard the argument of Mr.Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the records that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner by one Uday K.Patil, a resident of Andheri (East), Mumbai regarding various fraudulent transactions that the petitioner had with the said complainant. An English translation of the Marati FIR was also provided to the petitioner. When asked as to how this court has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case registered in Maharashtra and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Palghar and the writ petition is maintainable, the counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Navinchandra N.Majithia v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2000 SC 2966 in support of his contention that this court has got power to interfere even in respect of criminal case registered in some other State, i.e. in the present case within the State of Maharashtra.
3.On the contrary, in respect of criminal offences, the jurisdiction of an High Court is well defined. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg.Ltd reported in 2006 (3) SCC 658 dealt with the scope of power under Article 226 of the Constitution while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction in interfering with the orders of Magistrates taking cognizance under Cr.P.C. It was held that an High Court under Article 226 should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance by a competent Court of law. Only an High Court in whose jurisdiction the order of the Subordinate Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court also must remind itself about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. It is necessary to refer to the passages found in paragraphs 25, 28 to 29 in that judgment which are as follows:-
25. It is no doubt true that in a criminal matter also the High Court may exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking cognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ of certiorari ordinarily would not be issued by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra9.) However, we are not oblivious of a decision of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai10 wherein this Court upon noticing Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar9 and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra11 opined that a Judicial Court would also be subject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision has again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash12. It is, however, not necessary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noticed recently by this Court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar13 holding that even in terms thereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the application thereof. In Surya Dev Rai10 we may however, notice that this Court categorically stated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a very limited jurisdiction. It also made a distinction between exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It categorically laid down that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari only when an error apparent on the face of the record appears as such; the error should be self-evident. Thus, an error according to this Court needs to be established. As regards exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution it was held: (SCC p. 689, para 24) "The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction."
28. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of the subordinate court has been passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution unless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof.
29. The High Courts, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. [See Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express16.] (Emphasis added)
4.Significantly in that judgment, even the decision quoted by the author of the Book and relied on by the petitioner i.e. Navinchandra N.Majithia's case (cited supra) was referred and explained. Therefore, when a competent Court namely the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court at Palghar in State of Maharashtra is seized of the matter, it is not open to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition and such a writ petition will not lie.
5.In fact, the other accused had filed an application for bail in the same Magistrate Court and got the same which was also enclosed in the typed set. It is also stated that the petitioner also filed an anticipatory bail application before the court in which the criminal case is pending. It will not be out of place to note that the petitioner company earlier filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9144 of 2012 regarding a cheque bouncing case filed against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also impleaded various Metropolitan Magistrates at New Delhi, Haryana (Gurgaon) and Mumbai including the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in which C.C.No.2645/SS/2006 and 765/SS/2006 are pending. That writ petition was dismissed. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought to question the filing of cases under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in various courts outside the Tamil Nadu and contended that just in civil cases, the agreement between the parties to sue the petitioner only in the courts in Tamil Nadu should also be made applicable to the cases under the N.I.Act. This court had dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 10.4.2012 (that case since reported in 2012 (2) TLNJ 498 (Civil)).
6.In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
vvk To
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, The State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Kaiser-I hind Building, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001.
3.The Assistant Inspector of Police, The State of Maharashtra, Boiser Police Station E.O.W., Bhayander (W) 10, Thane District, Maharashtra State