Karthi P Chidambaram vs Superintendent Of Police on 22 August, 2017

[Cites 48, Cited by 4]

Madras High Court

Karthi P Chidambaram vs Superintendent Of Police on 22 August, 2017

Bench: P.Velmurugan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16.08.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.08.2017
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
WP.SR.Nos.69241, 69245 and 69249 of 2017

Karthi P Chidambaram,
S/o.Shri. P.Chidambaram,
No.16, Pycrofts Garden Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
... Petitioner in WP.SR.Nos.69241 & 69245 of 2017

1. M/s. Advantage Strategic Consulting (P) Ltd,
represented by its Director,
Mr.Mohanan Rajesh,
Having Office at No.2/33, Nageswara Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034.

2. Mrs. Padma Bhaskararaman

3.Mr. C.B.N. Reddy

4.Mr.Ravi Visvanathan

5.Mr.Mohanan Rajesh

6.Mr.S.Bhaskararman
... Petitioners in WP.SR.No.69249 of 2017
Vs.

Superintendent of Police
CBI/EOU-IV/EO-II,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
10th Floor, Plot No.5B, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110 003.
... Respondent in all cases

PRAYER IN W.P.SR. No.69241:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the First Information Report filed by the Respondent under section 154 of Cr.P.C having Ref.No.RC 2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the same and all proceedings thereto as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by mala fides.

PRAYER IN W.P.SR. No.69245:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating Notice under Section 41-A (1) r/w 41 (1) (b) Cr.PC dated 04.07.2017 having Ref.No5290 issued to Petitioner and quash the same as without jurisdiction, vitiated by legal malafides and in contravention of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273.

PRAYER IN W.P.SR. No.69249:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the First Information Report filed by the 1st Respondent under section 154 of Cr.P.C having Ref. No.RC 2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the consequential notices dated 04.07.2017, having Ref. No.5294/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5292/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5293/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, issued to the Petitioners 4, 5 and 6 by the second respondent under Section 160 CrPC and quash the same as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by malafides.

For petitioners : Mr.Gopal Subramanian, SC
for M/s.C.Uma
in WP.SR.Nos.69241 and 69245/17
Mr.Ajmal Khan, SC
for Mr.R.Parthiban
in WP.SR.No.69249 of 2017

For respondent : Mr.Tushar Mehta, ASG, GOI
in all the cases assisted by Mr.Rajat Nair
Junior counsel to ASG
assisted by Mr.K.Srinivasan
Spl.PP for CBI cases.
COMMON ORDER

Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69241 of 2017 is filed to call for the records relating to the FIR filed by the respondent under Section 154 Cr.PC having Ref.No.RC 2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the same and all proceedings thereto as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by malfides.

2. Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69245 of 2017 is filed to call for the records of the respondent relating to the Notice Under Section 41-A(1) r/w.4(1)(b) Cr.PC dated 04.07.2017 having Ref.No.5290 issued to the petitioner and quash the same as without jurisdiction, vitated by legal malafides and in contravention of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar V. State of Bihar reported in 2014 (8) SCC 273.

3. Writ Petition in WP.SR.No.69249 of 2017 is filed to call for the records relating to the FIR registered by the 1st respondent under Section 154 Cr.PC having Ref.No.RC 2202017 E 011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and consequential notices dated 04.07.2017, having Ref.No.5294/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5292/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, 5293/RC 11/2017/EOU-IV/EO-II, issued to the petitioners 4, 5 and 6 by the 2nd respondent under Section 160 Cr.PC and quash the same as without jurisdiction, abuse of power and vitiated by malafides.

4. While scrutinizing the papers, the Registry returned all the petitions to the counsel for the petitioners for the following clarification:-

It may be stated as to how the writ petitions are maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the subject matter pertains to Criminal in nature and also the cause of action arose in New Delhi, hence the same may be clarified.

5. The respective counsel represented the papers with an endorsement made in a separate sheet, which reads as follows :-

WP.SR. Nos.69241 & 69245 of 2017 In para 65 of the Writ Petitions, it is stated as follows:

"Even though the FIR was filed in the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi, part of the cause of action arose in Chennai even as per column 5 of the FIR stating that the place of occurrence is Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai; the search pursuant to the search warrant issued by the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi was conducted in Chennai; and the alleged illegal gratification of Rs.10 lakhs was received in Chennai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant Writ Petition".

In Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will have jurisdiction to quash a FIR if part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the said High Court even though the FIR is registered in a different state. Kindly refer Para's 27, 43, 44 and 45.

In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme court examined the scope of the High Court's power to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of CrPC. Further the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC have no limits. Further Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. Refer Para 22 and 30.

Hence, Writ Petitions are maintainable.

WP.SR. NO.69249 of 2017 In para 48 of the Writ Petition, it is stated as follows:

"The Petitioners are aggrieved by the FIR dated 15.05.2017, the consequential search operations conducted on 16.05.2017 and the summons issued by the investigation officer to the Petitioners 4 to 6. Even though the FIR was filed in the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi, part of the cause of action arose in Chennai even as per column 5 of the FIR stating that the place of occurrence is Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai; the search pursuant to the search warrant issued by the Special Court, CBI, New Delhi was conducted in Chennai; and the alleged illegal gratification of Rs.10 lakhs being the cause of action for the FIR was received in Chennai. This Hon'ble court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition since part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court".

In Pepsi Foods ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme court examined the scope of the High Court's power to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of CrPC. Further the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC have no limits. Further Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of Cr.PC are devised to advance justice and not to frustrate it. Refer Para 22 and 30.

Hence, Writ Petition is maintainable.

The notices dated 04.07.2017 have been issued, consequent to the FIR dated 15.05.2017. Hence, the FIR and notices are challenged in the present Writ Petition. Hence a separate Writ Petition to challenge the notice does not arise. Hence, the present Writ Petition is maintainable.

After perusing the endorsements made by the counsel for the petitioners, this Court on 19.07.2017, directed the Registry to list all the cases before the Court under the caption for maintainability

6. On 21.07.2017, all the writ petitions are listed under the caption for maintainability, Mr.Gopal Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Sr.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017 submitted that as per the decisions of Navinchandra N.Majithia V. State of Maharastra and others reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 and Pepsi Foods Ltd., and another V. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749. The CBI has registered the FIR with an intention to harass the petitioner, hence, the writ petition is maintainable as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.

7. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Government of India would submit that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction and he has not made any objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the subject matter and raised objections only with regard to territorial jurisdiction and both the counsel seeks time for elaborate arguments, this Court adjourned the matter to 28.07.2017, for arguments. While adjourning the matter, this Court directed the learned Additional Solicitor General to argue the case on merits, after hearing the matter in toto, if once the Court comes to the conclusion that this Court has got territorial jurisdiction, then, the same shall be decided on merits.

8. But, the learned Additional Solicitor General insisted upon the Court to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction first before arguing the case in detail and insisted upon other side not to touch merits of the case.

9. On 28.07.2017, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, High Court Madras seeks time, at his request, the case was listed on 10.08.2017. In the meanwhile, the Additional Solicitor General filed Short affidavit and preliminary objections before the Registry on 08.08.2017, itself. On 10.08.2017, both the counsel argued the matter at length with regard to territorial jurisdiction and seeks time till 16.08.2017, for submitting the written arguments. On 16.08.2017, the counsel for the petitioners submitted written submissions and the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted short affidavit and summary of submissions of hearing dated 10.08.2017.

10. The learned Additional Solicitor General, Government of India would submit that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as the FIR is registered at Delhi and sent the FIR to the Special Court, CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and now the matter is seized by the Special Court at Delhi, therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Now, the Delhi High Court has the power of superintendence over the Special Court, New Delhi which is within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the cases and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. In addition to that he has also submitted the written submission.

11. The Additional Solicitor General, Government of India further submits in his written arguments that on 09.07.2017, the said affidavit was filed specifically praying that the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction be decided as a preliminary issue. The said affidavit contains the following judgments which are relevant only for the proposition that the question of jurisdiction, whenever raised, should be decided as a preliminary question and the Court should not hear, adjudicate and record findings on merits without first deciding jurisdictional point which goes to the root of the matter. The Additional Solicitor General, has also cited the following authorities :-

1.Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405.

2.I.K.gujaral V. Election Commission of India (1993) 50 DLT 458.

3.UOI v. Adani Exports Ltd (2002) 1 SCC 567.

the judgments referred to above are relevant to the proposition that the question of jurisdiction should be decided as preliminary issue, the attempt on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners to go into the fact situation of the aforesaid judgments is wholly an irrelevant exercise.

12. Once an FIR is filed, it is mandatory for the Investigation Agency to send the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate/Special Court having jurisdiction. The Court which monitors the actions of the investigating agency and also addresses/redresses the grievances, if any, of either the accused or the investigating agency as per the code of Criminal Procedure. In matters pertaining to all criminal investigations/proceedings arising therefrom, it is the High Court which has the supervisory jurisdiction over the said jurisdictional Court monitoring/supervising the investigation, which would exercise the jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code.

13. As already conclusively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, the concept of "part of cause of action", is absolutely irrelevant and has no application in criminal proceedings and only that High Court would entertain a prayer for quashing which has the supervisory jurisdiction over the jurisdictional court which is monitoring the investigation as per CrPC.

14. In this context, the prayer prayed for in the captioned petition needs to be seen which is as under:

"Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the First Information Report filed by the Respondent under section 154 of CrPC having Ref.No.RC2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge, CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the same and all proceedings thereto as without jurisdiction, abuse of process and vitiated by malafides and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper so that justice may be done."

(Emphasis Supplied)

15. The judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v.State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 has categorically held that "the civil law concept of 'part of cause of action' cannot be borrowed for the purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction in criminal matters". The fact that the said case arose from an offence under the Negotiable Instrument Act is a mere co-incidence and irrespective of the penal act involved, the ratio of Dashrath Rupsingh case (supra) would not change. The Attempts made on the part of the petitioner to distinguish the said judgment on the said ground is unsustainable in law.

16. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit that as argued on 21.07.2017 and 10.08.2017, if some judicial order is passed by the Special Judge (CBI Court) Patiala House, New Delhi in the present proceedings pending before him regarding the offence in question and the same is challenged by the investigating officer or one of the accused before the Delhi High Court, the same would obviously be maintainable and cannot be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High court. If this Hon'ble Court is pleased to hold that this Court also has parallel jurisdiction, then the very same order passed by Special Judge (CBI Court) Patiala House, New Delhi can be brought in question by another accused before this Hon'ble Court simultaneously. This would, inevitably, give rise to conflicting judicial opinions which can never be countenanced by this Court.

17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.Sr.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017 would submit that the writ petitions are filed for alleging violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 , 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, to highlight, within the realm of public law, abuse of authority and malafide actions by various agencies of the Central Government of India including the CBI. The petitioner is residing in Chennai and the company alleged to be associated with the petitioner as well as the Directors of the said company are also situated in Chennai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The agency viz., CBI have undertaken all the actions including various searches and seizures from 2015 onwards in Chennai. The FIR dated 15.05.2017 itself refers to one of the places of occurrence of conspiracy under Section 120B as well the place of receipt of the cheque is in Chennai. Article 226(1) r/w. Article 226(2) relate to the enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, they form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the attempt on the part of the respondent to oust the Constitutional remedy on a spacious plea of territorial jurisdiction is liable to be rejected.

18. The learned senior counsel would further submit that the scope and meaning of the expression cause of action which occurs in clause (2) of the Article 226 is indeed no longer open to debate since in Kusam Ingots & Alloys Ltd V. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, it has been clearly held that :-

"6. Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that every thing which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily.....

9. Although in view of Section 141 of the Code of civil Procedure the provisions thereof would not apply to writ proceedings, the phraseology used Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and clause (2) of Article 226, being in parimateria, the decisions of this court rendered on interpretation of Section 20(c) CPC shall apply to the writ proceedings also. Before proceeding to discuss the matter further it may be pointed out that the entire bundle of facts pleaded need not constitute a cause of action as what is necessary to be proved before the petitioner can obtain a decree is the material facts. The expression material facts is also known as integral facts."

19. The same position has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu - (1994) 4 SCC 711 wherein the Supreme Court quoted the meaningful words of Lord Watson in Chandra Kaul v. Pratap Singh - ILR 1889 (16) Calcutta 98 at 102:-

"... 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."

20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners would rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Navin Chandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra - (2000) 7 SCC 640. In that decision, the Supreme court held that the Bombay High court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition with respect to an FIR registered in Meghalaya in view of the fact that material facts that led to the registration of the FIR had taken place at Bombay. The Court expounded on Article 226 (2) clearly and said:-

"17. From the provision in clause (2) of Article it is clear that the maintainability or otherwise of the writ petition in the High court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.....

43. We make it clear that the mere fact that FIR was registered in a particular State is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. Nor are we to be understood that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another state or by making a sojourn or even a permanent residence therin. The place of residence of the person moving a High Court is not the criterion to determine the contours of the cause of ation in that particular writ petition. The High court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts in each case.

(Emphasis added)

21. In the present cases, having regard to the series of facts which are described from paragraphs 11 to 65 of the writ petitions, it would be clear that events have taken place in Chennai not only in relation to the Petitioner, but also in relation to those known to or even remotely associated with the Petitioners (as stated in the FIR itself). The abuse of authority, mala fides, actions, and the invasion of the right to life and liberty of the Petitioner and those associated with the petitioners have been described at great length in the petition. The Petitioner will substantiate the said allegations. It is the material facts that gave rise to the pleadings in the Writ Petition will determine whether the cause of action, wholly or partly, arose in Chennai. The FIR, has been registered on 15.05.2017, is an action in continuum of a series of mala fide acts that took place in Chennai and hence liable to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its public law jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that the authorities act within the bounds of power and bonafides.

22. The preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised on behalf of the respondent is liable to be rejected. First, the said objection was raised on 21.07.2017. An oral prayer was made that the Court ought to pass an order on its jurisdiction. The court proceeded to state that it would like to dispose of the matter finally and would also deal with the issue relating to jurisdiction. On the subsequent date of hearing, an affidavit was tendered by the CBI calling upon the Court to pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction. A note containing copious references to authorities which were already cited on 21.07.2017 was tendered and read out once again. The principal contentions raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General for CBI and the reply given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are briefly discussed hereunder : -

(i)FIR is registered in Delhi and therefore the Special Judge in Delhi has jurisdiction.

The CBI, although constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, has an All-India presence and Special Judges exist in different parts of the country. Thus, it cannot be contended that in matters relating to corruption only the Special Judges in Delhi have jurisdiction in respect of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Besides, the place of registration of an FIR is irrelevant and immaterial to the exercise of jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(ii)The orders relating to search as well as intimation to the Special Judge had been undertaken in Delhi.

The compliance with requirements of the Code does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. Article 226 confers original and plenary jurisdiction upon the High Court and cannot be negated by the executive action of registering FIR in Delhi.

(iii) The decision in Navin Chandra case has been overruled in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathore V. State of Maharastra - (2014) 9 SCC 129.

This is plainly incorrect. Dashrath case dealt with the question of the correctness of the earlier decision in K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 and sought to determine where would a cause of action arise for the purpose of filing a complaint having regard to the provisions of Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Supreme Court held that the offence was complete when the dishonour of the cheque took place and conditions relating to the cognizance of an offence must not determined, the place where the offence had been committed for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Incidentally, the decision in Dashrath case approved the decision in Navin Chandra Majithia and said that the said decision was one which related to Article 226(2) of the Constitution. Till date the judgment in Navin Chandra Majithia is holds good and has not been overruled. The judgment in Dashrath now stands superseded by virtue of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v Inderpal Singh - (2016) 2 SCC 75, has noticed that the Amendment Ordinance of 2015 has overcome the legal position declared in Dashrath case.

(iv) The decisions cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General suggests that if proceedings lie before a subordinate court in another State, then the Madras High Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General is incorrect because even though supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 227 and 482 will lie or vest in the High Court within whose territories the subordinate court is located, this will not have effect of ousting the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 in cases where a part of the case of action has arisen within the territory of such High Court.

23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Sr.No.69249 of 2017 would submit that the respondent/CBI insisted this Court to decide the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition to quash the FIR registered by the respondent at Delhi. The judgments relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the effect that the High Court's having held that it had no jurisdiction ought not to have decided the case on merits. At this stage, the said proposition would not apply to the present case in hand. In the judgments relied on by the Additional Solicitor General, the High Court's after hearing the parties, passed orders both on the point of jurisdiction as well as on merits despite returning the finding that he had no jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases, held that the exercise by the High Court to be inappropriate, in the case on hand, the Court can hear the parties as jurisdiction on merits and in the event of this Court arriving at a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, it need venture into the merits of the case and as such it would not be opened to the respondents to contend that this Court is not entitled to hear on the merits of the case, without deciding the issue of jurisdiction separately.

24. The submission made by the learned Additional Solicitor General, that the High Court cannot issue prerogative writs beyond its territorial jurisdiction (Election Commission, India Vs. Saka Venkata Subbarao, AIR 1953 SC 2010) However, the said position has been legislatively altered by the 15th Constitutional Amendment and later by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, to sustain the submission of the respondent would be to do violence to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India.

25. The issue as to whether the High Court would be competent to issue a Writ of Certiorari, quashing an FIR registered beyond its territorial jurisdiction, when the facts leading to filing of the FIR, falls within the jurisdiction of the said High Court either partly or wholly, came up for the consideration of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navin Chandra Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640, wherein an FIR, registered in the State of Megalaya, was assailed in the Bombay High Court. The High Court, dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction, which was appealed against and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, having regard to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

26. It is clear that a writ petition assailing an FIR registered at Delhi in the Madras High court is maintainable if the cause of action for filing the writ petition either in part or fully arose within its jurisdiction. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, also held in Kusumingots and Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India, 2004 6 SCC 245, that Article 226 (2) of the constitution enables the High Court to entertain a writ petition even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of High Court and that when a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of one Court and the rest within another High Court, the petitioner could choose any of the High Court being dominus lites.

27. However, quite strangely in an application made under section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash an FIR registered at Mumbai, the learned single judge of this Court, in S.Ilanahi Vs. State of Maharastra 2015 IMWN Cr.618, considering the fact that not provision akin to Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India was provided in Section 482 of the code, held that such an application under section 482 of the Code would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Dasrath case had opined that the concept of the cause of action is alien to criminal jurisprudence and therefore, a writ petition under Article 226 (2) also would not lie before the High Court in case the situs of the authority registering the criminal case is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

28. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the judgments cited by the Additional Solicitor General is not applicable to the case on hand and since the Navinchandra case is the relevant case to decide this case, because the cause of action arises in more than one places, the same was mentioned in column No.5 in the FIR. The CBI registered the case against the petitioners/accused and some of the unknown officials, search was also conducted in Chennai and other places, the part of the cause of action arises before this Court. Therefore, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, the contentions raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General, is liable to be rejected as this Court requires to hear the writ petitions on merits and pass orders.

29. Heard, Mr.Gopal Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.SR.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.SR.No.69245 of 2017 and Mr.Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General, Government of India appearing for the respondent in all the writ petitions.

30. The facts of the case for the purpose of considering the issue is that, the respondent/CBI has registered FIR against the present petitioners/accused and some unknown persons at New Delhi and produced the FIR before the Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the investigation is pending. After registering the FIR at Delhi, search was conducted at some places in Chennai and issued summons to the petitioners to appear for enquiry. Hence, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions before this Court, challenging to quash the FIR and also the notices issued to the petitioners by the CBI on the ground of malafide intention.

31.As stated earlier, at the first instance itself, even both the counsel have no quarrel over the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, the learned Additional Solicitor General has raised a preliminary objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction over the impugned criminal proceedings challenging under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the only question is to be decided is whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition and the same has to be decided first as preliminary issue.

32.According to the writ petitioners, with regard to territorial jurisdiction, part of the cause of action arises in Chennai that too within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter and this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.

33. According to the prosecution, though part of cause of action arises in Chennai, but the FIR was registered in New Delhi, the FIR was sent to the Special Judge CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the Special Court, New Delhi has seized the matter and now the Delhi High Court only has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, because the Delhi High Court has superintendence over all the Courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

34. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.SR.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017 and 69249 of 2017 in support of their respective contentions placed reliance on the following decisions:-

1.Kusum Ingots & alloys Ltd., v. UOI (2004) 6 SCC 254.

2.ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711

3.Navin Chandra N.Majithia v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640.

4.Dashrath Rupsingh Rathore V. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129.

5.Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (1978) 1 SCC 405.

6.M/s.Bridgestone India Pvt Ltd., V. Imderpal Singh (2016) 2 SCC 75.

7.K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and another (1999) 7 SCC 510.

8.Pepsi Foods ltd. and another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate reported in 1998 (5) SCC 749.

9.UOI and others v. Adani Exports Ltd., & another (2002) 1 SCC 567

10.I.K.Gujaral v. Election Commission of India and others (1993) 50 DLT 458.

35. The Additional Solicitor General, Government of India in support of his contentions placed his reliance on the decisions given below :-

1.Dashrath Rupsingh Rathore V. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129

2.S.Ilahahai V. The State of Maharashtra 2015 (1) MWN (Cr.) 618.

3.S.P.Lakshmanan V. The Judicial Magistrate No.3, Maharashtra and others.

4.Raman Ravi v. State rep by the Officer in charge, J3 Police Station, Thiru vi ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 2016 SCC online 10078.

5.Krishnan and others V. Inspector of Police and others 2000 Crl.LJ 3684.

6.M/s.UBC and others V. M.R.Gowthanam 2005 SCC online Ker 164.

7.Coastal Mines and Minerals and others v. State of Chhattisgarh, Principal Secretary, Home Secretariat and others ILR 2012 Karnataka 6494.

8.Krishnakumar Menon v. Neoteric Informatique Pvt Ltd., - 2001 SCC Online Ker 436.

9.Sanjeev Rujendrabjai Bhatt V. State of Gujarat and others 1998 SCC online Guj 297.

10.First custodian fund (India) ltd and others v. Nedungadi Bank Ltd and others 2007 (6) Mh.LJ. 295.

11.Arun Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan and another 2010 SCC online Raj 1184.

36. As already stated that both the counsel have no quarrel with regard to the maintainability of filing of writ petitions to quash the FIR under Article 226. Under the said circumstances now the points for consideration are as follows:-

1.Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions?

2.Whether the territorial jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue? and

3.Whether the Doctrine of Forum convenience is applicable to this case?

37. Point No : 2 Whether the territorial jurisdiction can be decided as preliminary issue?

In this regard, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that the question of jurisdiction, whenever raised, should be decided as a preliminary question and the Court should not hear, adjudicate and record findings on merits without first deciding jurisdictional point which goes to the root of the matter. He has also placed reliance on the following authorities :-

1.Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 1 SCC 405.

2.I.K.Gujaral v. Election Commission of India (1993) 50 DLT 458.

3.UOI v. Adani Exports Ltd (2002) 1 SCC 567.

He would further submit that the above referred judgments are relied on only for the limited purpose that the question of territorial jurisdiction should be decided as preliminary issue.

38. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.Sr.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017 would submit that the preliminary issue raised by the respondent/CBI is liable to be rejected. The authorities cited in Mohinder Singh Gill and I.K.Gujaral cases, the writ petitions are raised for election dispute under Article 329(b) is bar including the Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In those cases, since, there was a bar in the Constitution itself, the question of preliminary issue was raised. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the jurisdiction as the preliminary issue. Whereas, in this case, there is no statutory bar as admitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the writ petitions are maintainable. The only objection is that whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction. Once it is admitted that the writ petition is maintainable, there is no specific provision as to decide the preliminary issue as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 2 CPC, hence, the question of territorial jurisdiction need not be decided as preliminary issue.

39. The preliminary objection to jurisdiction raised on behalf of the respondent is liable to be rejected. First, the said objection was raised on 21.07.2017. An oral prayer was made that the Court ought to pass an order on its jurisdiction. The court proceeded to state that it would like to dispose of the matter finally and would also deal with the issue relating to jurisdiction. On the subsequent date of hearing, an affidavit was tendered by the CBI calling upon the Court to pronounce on the issue of jurisdiction.

40. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.SR.No.69249 of 2017 would submit that the respondent/CBI insisted this Court to decide preliminary issue as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition to quash the FIR registered by the respondent at New Delhi. The judgments relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General to the effect that the High Court's having held that it had no jurisdiction ought not to have decided the case on merits. At this stage, the said proposition would not apply to the present case on hand. In the judgments relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the High Court's after hearing the parties, passed orders both on the point of jurisdiction as well as on merits despite returning the finding that he had no jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court in such cases, held the exercise by the High Court to be inappropriate, in the case on hand, the Court can hear the parties as jurisdiction on merits and in the event of this Court arriving at a conclusion that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, it need venture into the merits of the case and as such it would not be open to the respondents to contend that this Court is not entitled to hear on the merits of the case, without deciding the issue of jurisdiction separately.

41. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 wherein it is held that :-

Article 329 (b) provides that notwithstanding anything in the Constitution, no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either of the Houses of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature.

Under Article 329(b) the sole remedy for an aggrieved party, if he wants to challenge any election is an election petition and this exclusion of all other remedies includes constitutional remedies like Article 226 because of the non obstante clause.

42. In the case decided by the Delhi High Court in I.K.Gujaral V. Election Commission of India reported in (1993) 50 DLT 458 it is held as follows :-

The principal and the preliminary question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the High Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the blanket ban under Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Though, the above referred judgments are relating to election cases and there is a bar under Article 329(b) of Constitution of India to entertain the writ petition for availing constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same are not applicable to the present case on hand. But at the same time, once one of the parties has raised the preliminary objection that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter, then it is the duty of the Court to decide the same as preliminary issue before going into the merits of the case. On reading of the above said authorities as contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, these authorities are relevant to election cases. The learned Additional Solicitor General has relied on these judgments only for the limited purpose for deciding the territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Though, the above referred two authorities are relating to election cases and the same are not applicable to the present case. While exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no bar to this Court to decide the territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue. Further, no prejudice would be caused to either side to decide the question of territorial jurisdiction as preliminary issue.

43. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UOI and others v. Adani Exports Ltd., & another (2002) 1 SCC 567 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-

Having considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and having perused the records, we are of the considered opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be first decided by us before going into the merits of the case in hand. As a matter of fact, we feel it would have been more appropriate on the facts of the cases if the High Court had proceeded under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC by deciding the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue first instead of deciding the case on merit.

44. Therefore, this Court is inclined to first decide the preliminary issue as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions. This point is answered accordingly.

45. Points No.1.

Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions?

In this regard, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that once an FIR is filed, it is mandatory for the Investigation Agency to send the copy of the FIR to the Magistrate/Special Court having jurisdiction. The Court which monitors the actions of the investigating agency and also addresses/redresses the grievances, if any, of either the accused or the investigating agency as per the code of Criminal Procedure. In matters pertaining to all criminal investigations/proceedings arising therefrom, it is the High Court which has the supervisory jurisdiction over the said jurisdictional Court monitoring/supervising the investigation, which would exercise the jurisdiction either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code.

46. As already conclusively held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dasrath Rupsingh Rathod V. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129, the concept of "part of cause of action", is absolutely irrelevant and has no application in criminal proceedings and only that High Court would entertain a prayer for quashing which has the supervisory jurisdiction over the jurisdictional court which is monitoring the investigation as per CrPC.

47. In this context, the prayer prayed for in the captioned petitions needs to be seen which is as under:

"Under these circumstances it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the First Information Report filed by the Respondent under section 154 of CrPC having Ref.No.RC2202017 E 0011 dated 15.05.2017 before the Special Judge, CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and quash the same and all proceedings thereto as without jurisdiction, abuse of process and vitiated by malafides and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper so that justice may be done." (Emphasis Supplied)

48. The judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 has categorically held that "the civil law concept of 'part of cause of action' cannot be borrowed for the purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction in criminal matters".

49. The petitioners have sought to justify by filing captioned petitions before this Court in the following para of the petition:-

"65. Even though the FIR was filed in the special court CBI, New Delhi, part of cause of action arose in Chennai even as per column 5 of the FIR stating that the place of occurrence is Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai; the search pursuant to the search warrant issued by the special court CBI New Delhi was conducted in Chennai; and the alleged illegal gratification of Rs.10 lakhs being the cause of action for the FIR was received in Chennai. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant writ petition."

50. For an offence FIR registered at New Delhi, the investigation may spread over the entire country and the raids also may be required to be conducted in various parts of the country. Merely because raids were conducted, inter-alia, in Chennai or the tentative "place of offence" is mentioned to be "Delhi, Bombay and Chennai"at the time of filing of the FIR, would not mean that each of the High Court of Delhi, Bombay and Madras would have territorial jurisdiction, keeping it open for each accused to chose the High Court of his choice. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency may find that various steps of conspiracy which resulted into the culmination of the offence at New Delhi. Filing of the present petition in the High Court which has no territorial jurisdiction in demonstratively an abuse of the process of law and a device to create hurdles in smooth investigation as per law.

51. The civil concept of "part of cause of action"cannot be imported in all matters where the subject matter is criminal proceedings/criminal investigation and proceedings arising therefrom irrespective of whether the petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

52. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP.Sr.Nos.69241 and 69245 of 2017 would submit that the petitioner is residing in Chennai and the company alleged to be associated with the petitioner as well as the Directors of the said company are also situated in Chennai within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The agency viz., CBI have undertaken all the actions including various searches and seizures from 2015 onwards in Chennai. The FIR dated 15.05.2017 itself refers to one of the places of occurrence of conspiracy under Section 120B as well the place of receipt of the cheque is Chennai. Article 226(1) r/w. Article 226(2) relate to the enforcement of fundamental rights under Part III of the Constitution, they form a part of the basic structure of the Constitution and the attempt on the part of the respondent to oust the Constitutional remedy on a spacious plea of territorial jurisdiction is liable to be rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that if the cause of action arises more than one places, any one of the Court has got territorial jurisdiction to try the case. In this case, the writ petitioners challenged the malafide FIR and notices, since, part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to take up the subject matter.

53. The learned senior counsel also mainly placed his reliance on the following judgments :-

1.Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India - 2004 6 SCC 245.

2.ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4 SCC 711.

3.Navin Chandra Majitha v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640.

54. It is submitted that in the present cases, having regard to the series of facts which are described from paragraphs 11 to 65 of the writ petition, it would be clear that events have taken place in Chennai not only in relation to the Petitioner, but also in relation to those known to or even remotely associated with the Petitioners (as stated in the FIR itself). The abuse of authority, mala fides, actions, and the invasion of the right to life and liberty of the Petitioner and those associated with the petitioners have been described at great length in the petition. The Petitioner will substantiate the said allegations. It is the material facts that gave rise to the pleadings in the Writ Petition will determine whether the cause of action, wholly or partly, arose in Chennai. It is submitted that FIR, has been registered on 15.05.2017, is an action in continuum of a series of mala fide acts that took place in Chennai and hence liable to be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its public law jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to ensure that the authorities act within the bounds of power and bonafides.

55. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP.Sr.No.69249 of 2017 would submit that he adopts the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the other two writ petitions. Apart from that, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held time and again that if the cause of action arises more than one places, all the Courts have got territorial jurisdiction. However, the decision cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General are not applicable to the present case on hand. In all the cases, referred by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Court has already taken cognizance of the offences by the concerned jurisdictional Court. Therefore, as per provisions under Section 482 of the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court has got jurisdiction to take up the subject matter. Whereas, in this case, it is in FIR stage, the investigation is pending and the Special Court has not taken any cognizance for the offences in the FIR. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General is not applicable at the present stage.

56. The decision relied on by the learned Additional Solicitor General in the cases Dashrath Rupsingh it relates to Negotiable Instruments Act and the cases reported in Mohinder Singh Gill and I.K.Gujaral are relevant to the matters relating to election cases.

57. As already stated, both the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that part of the cause of action arises in Chennai, search was conducted in Chennai and notices for enquiry were served in Chennai. Therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter and mainly placed reliance on the Navinchandra case (cited supra).

58. The learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that though some of the incidence taken place in Chennai, this Court does not have jurisdiction, because FIR was registered at New Delhi by the respondent/CBI, the Special Court for CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi has seized up the matter, except the Delhi High Court, no other High Court has territorial jurisdiction to proceed further and mainly placed reliance on the Dashrath Rupsingh case (cited supra).

59. This Court, carefully perused the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners and also the objections raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General and also the oral arguments advanced by the respective counsel for the petitioners and catena of decisions cited on either side and the written arguments submitted by the respective counsel, the FIR filed by the respondent CBI, the search warrant issued by the Special Court and the notices issued by the respondent CBI under Section 41-A(1) r/w.41(1)(b) Cr.PC.

60. Under the said circumstances, now without going into the merits of the case as stated above, this Court hears the writ petitions on the question of maintainability alone, with regard to preliminary issue as to whether this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain these writ petitions.

61. While advancing the arguments on the issues, the learned Additional Solicitor General would submit that in this case, FIR is registered by the respondent/CBI in New Delhi against these petitioners and other unknown officials and the respondent produced the said FIR before the Special Court for CBI Cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, all the unknown official accused are public servants in New Delhi, except the search was conducted in Chennai. Therefore, most part of the cause of action is at New Delhi only some of the incidence taken place at Chennai. However, the Special Court in Delhi has now seized up the matter and hence, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to take up the matter.

62. In reply, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that part of the cause of action arises in Chennai and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. In support of their contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Navin Chandra Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640. He would further submit that after the judgment of the Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Election Commission, India Vs. Saka Venkata Subbarao reported in AIR 1953 SC 2010, the said position has been legislatively altered by the 15th Constitutional Amendment and later by the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution. By this amendment, the jurisdiction of the High Court was expanded to entertain such matters also only the cause of action wholly or in part had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Notwithstanding that the seal of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

63. On perusal of the Navinchandra N.Majithia case (supra) it is relevant to refer the fact of the above said case in brief : -

the complainant company M/s.J.B.Holdings Ltd., set up at Shilong by the majority shareholders of Ms.Export limited (which had entered into transaction with appellant in Maharastra), had lodged an FIR at Shilong. The Apex Court found that the appellant in the writ petition preferred before the Bombay High Court had also made an alternative prayer for transfer of the case from Shilong to Patna High Court CWJC No.13957 of 2011 dated 06.08.2012 Bombay. The two learned judges of the bench, in their separate but concurrenting judgment, found that the key words in the clause 2 of Article 226 expanding jurisdiction of the High Courts, were cause of action, wholly or in part. Learned Judges noticed previous judgments of the Court on the issue and also definition of expression cause of action appearing in the Strouds Judicial Dictionary. The finding of the bench was crystallized by Thomas J. in paragraph 13 of the judgment. Finally the Court foud that the entire incidence had happened in Bombay and as such the Court directed the investigation relating to the complaint of the Company filed at Shilong to be held by the Mumbai Police. The ratio of the judgment shows that it is the collective facts or bundle of facts which is relevant to constitute cause of action and not the residence of a particular party.

64. Whereas, in the present case, the respondent/CBI filed the FIR the relevant portion of the FIR is extracted, wherein it is stated that for the services rendered by Karti Chidambaram to M/s.INX Group through Chess Management Services (P) Limited in getting the issues against INX Group scuttled, by influencing the public servants of the FIPB Unit of the Ministry of finance consideration in the form of payments were received against invoice raised on INX Media (P) Limited by M/s.Advantage Strategic consulting (P) Limited (ASCPL). The source informs that the very reason for getting the invoice raised in the name of M/s.ASCPL for the services rendered by M/s.Chess Management Services (P) Limited was with a view to conceal the identity of Karti P.Chidambaram, in as much as on the date when the invoice was raised or when payment was received, Karti P.Chidambaram was Promoter Director of M/s.Chess Management Services (P) Limited, whereas M/s.ASCPL was being controlled by him indirectly. The information also disclose that the invoices for approximately an mount of Rs.3.5crores were also got raised in favour of M/s.INX group in the name of other companies in which Shri. Karti P.Chidambaram was having sustainable interests either directly or indirectly. Such invoices were falsely got raised for creation acquisition of media content, consultancy in respect of market research, acquisition of content of various genre of Audio/Video etc. However, INX group in its record has clearly mentioned the purpose of payment of Rs.10 lakhs to M/s.Advantage Strategic consulting (P) Limited towards "Management consultancy charges towards FIPB notification and clarification". Therefore, the part of the cause of action arises at Chennai.

65. After examining the Clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution and various earlier judgments of the High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court, it held that it was not only the existence of bundle of essential facts which was necessary to consittute cause of action for a party to maintain a writ petition in a High Court, it was also essential that the bundle of facts must be material, integral or essential part of the lis between the parties. In this Context, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph 36 of the judgment noticed the views of the Court in the case of UOI v. Adani Exports reported in AIR 2002 SC 126 and the cause of action for the parties to maintain the writ petitions.

.... From the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the ratio laid down in catena of decisions by this Court, it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant, would or would not constitute a part of the cause of action, one has to consider whether such facts constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/petition. Nevertheless, it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that.

66. As already stated, to maintain a writ petition in a High court, a party must not only establish that the bundle of facts of the case, for constituting the cause of action, arose within the territorial jurisdiction of that High Court, they must also establish that the said bundle of facts must be material, essential or integral part of the lis between the parties.

67. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India reported in 2004 6 SCC 245 wherein it is held as follows :-

10. Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will have jurisdiction in the matter.

12. This Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu held that the question as to whether the Court has a territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being immaterial.

68. It is seen from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd reported in (2002) 1 SCC 567 wherein it is held as follows :-

It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in-part, arises. This provision in the Constitution has come up for consideration in a number of cases before this Court. In this regard, it would suffice for us to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors. - (1994) 4 SCC 711 wherein it was held :-

Under Article 226 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 seal 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. The expression cause of action means that bundle or facts which the petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his favour by the Court.

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. Thus, the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial.

69. In the case reported in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 wherein it is observed as follows :-

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."

...... 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.

70. With regard to the decisions reported in K.Bhaskaran V. Sankaran Vaidhyan balan and another reported in (1999) 7 SCC 510; Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v.State of Maharashtra reported in (2014) 9 SCC 129 and M/s.Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v Inderpal Singh reported in (2016) 2 SCC 75. In order to over come the decision of the Bhaskaran case the jurisdiction of the offence regarding Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, the above cases referred to are applicable to the cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

71. As rightly observed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Ajmal Khan, the same was subsequent to the amendment by the parliament. He also brought to the notice of this Court regarding the relavant portion of the judgment in the case of M/s.Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v Inderpal Singh reported in (2016) 2 SCC 75 which is extracted hereunder :-

In order to overcome the legal position declared by this Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod's case, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance'). A perusal of Section 192) thereof reveals, that the ordinance would be deemed to have come into force with effect from 15.06.2015. It is therefore pointed out to us, that the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 is in force. Our attention was then invited to Section 3 thereof, whereby, the original Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, came to be amended, and also, Section 4 thereof, whereby, Section 142 A was inserted into the Negotiable Instruments Act.

.....

142A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any Court, all cases transferred to the Court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142, as amended by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015, shall be deemed to have been transferred under this Ordinance, as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.

72. For better understanding, it is pertinent to extract Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India which speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court :-

226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

73.Therefore, in the light of the above decisions on bare reading of the writ petitions, copy of the FIR produced before this case and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that this Court has territorial jurisdiction.

74. In the light of the above discussions this Court finds that this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions, hence, the point No.1 is answered in affirmative.

75. Point No.3 Whether the Doctrine of Forum convenience is applicable to this case ?

In this regard, it is necessary to refer again the judgment of the Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India reported in 2004 6 SCC 245 wherein it is held as follows :-

Forum convenience

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum convenience.

76. As contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, it is obligatory on the part of the Court to see convenience of all parties before it. The principle of forum convenience in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept that the cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of the Court will not itself constitute to be the determining factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter.

77. As already narrated above, the FIR is registered at New Delhi and also the same has been produced before the Special Judge CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and after investigation also the charge sheet will be filed before the Special Court, New Delhi. As per the doctrine of forum convenience, since because part of the cause of action arises in Chennai, the Court will not constitute to determining the factor compelling the Court to entertain the matter. Further, as held above, the writ petitions are maintainable before this Court and this Court has territorial jurisdiction. As admitted by both the counsel the writ petitions are maintainable. As this Court held that this Court has territorial jurisdiction, considering the facts and circumspection of the case, that the FIR is registered at New Delhi and produced before the Special Judge CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi against the petitioners herein and other unknown persons/officials for the offences constituted under Section 120B r/w.420 and Sections 8 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to the officials in the Ministry of Finance Department, Government of India, New Delhi and Further, the petitioners are businessmen and their companies are involved in the issue, hence, they would not have any impediment or any financial crisis to approach the Delhi High Court.

78. Under the said circumstances, this Court is not entertaining these writ petitions, for the reason that this Court is inclined to adopt the doctrine of forum convenience, that being so no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners and also they are having an alternative remedy to approach the Delhi High Court for the very same relief, which has superintendence power over the Special Court for CBI Cases at New Delhi which is within its jurisdiction. In this case, though the writ petitions are maintainable and this Court has territorial jurisdiction, however, in the interest of justice and in order to avoid conflicting view, in case any one of the party approaches before the Delhi High Court or Bombay High Court for the very same relief, this Court is inclined to adopt the doctrine of forum convenience.

79. Considering the reasons and the discussions as held above, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary discretionary power to entertain these writ petitions before this Court. All the points raised are answered accordingly.

80. In the result, the Registry is directed to return all the papers filed before this Court to the parties for enabling them to approach the Delhi High Court, which has superintendence power over the Special Court for CBI Cases at New Delhi which is within its jurisdiction.

22.08.2017.

tsh Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. To

1.The Special Judge CBI cases, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

2.The Additional Solicitor General, Government of India, New Delhi.

3.The Special Public Prosecutor, CBI Cases, High Court, Madras.

4.The Superintendent of Police, CBI/EOU-IV/EO-II, Central Bureau of Investigation, 10th Floor, Plot No.5B, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110 003.

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

tsh Pre - Delivery Orders in WP.SR.Nos.69241, 69245 and 69249 of 2017 22.08.2017.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court