Karnataka High Court
Neeraj Kumar Chadha vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT APPEAL NO.1517 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA
S/O.SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA
AGE 47 YEARS, R/O J-102,
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS
JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057
2. SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA
S/O LATE JATTU MAL CHADHA
AGE 83 YEARS, R/O J-102
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS
JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057
3. VINAY MALHOTRA
W/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA
AGE 76 YEARS, R/O J-102
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS
JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057
4. RAJEEV CHADHA
S/O SUDESH KUMAR CHADHA
AGE 49 YEARS, R/O J-102
VAISHNAVI RATHNAM APARTMENTS
JALAHALLI CROSS, T DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. NEERAJ KUMAR CHADHA, PARTY-IN-PERSON/APPELLANTS)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AT THE INSTANCE OF POLICE
IN-CHARGE OF BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 073 KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER OF
CITY POLICE STATION,
PANIPAT, HARYANA, PIN-132 103
REPRESENTING STATE OF HARYANA
3. DEEPIKA NANDWANI
D/O RANAKANT NANDWANI
R/O A/3 MAHAJAN STREET,
INSAR CHOWK, PANIPAT
HARYANA - 132 103
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS.SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1;
MR. ABHISHEK MARLA, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE PARA (iii)
OF THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN WP No.17007/2021 AND ALLOW THE WP No.17007/2021
PRAYER PARA-II AS PRAYED FOR; b) PASS ANY ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 07.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, T.M. NADAF J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
3
CAV JUDGMENT
( PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ) This intra-court appeal is filed by the unsuccessful petitioners against the order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17007/2021 (GM-RES), whereby the prayer seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana Police, Panipat, and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections-498(A), 406 and 354-C, read with Section-34 of IPC was declined on merits.
2. The Registry of this Court has raised an objection on the maintainability of this appeal under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961 ('Act of 1961' for short), in terms of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of SREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHVARA SWAMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at para No.11 held as under:
"11. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petition filed before the learned Single Judge, notwithstanding its nomenclature, as one filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the 1 2015 (2) AKR 179 4 Constitution of India, read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., was actually one filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned single Judge was justified in treating and deciding the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Therefore, this writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is not maintainable."
3. On 08.01.2025, when the matter was listed for compliance of office objections, one of the appellants who appeared in person, submitted that the intra-court appeal under Section-4 of Act of 1961, is maintainable. This Court having considered the submission of the party-in-person, passed the following order:
"The Registry has raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ appeal. It appears the same is because the order passed by the learned Single Judge is also under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The submission of one of the appellants who appears in person is that the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition is also the FIR registered in Panipat, Haryana, which the Court has not set aside. The petition having been filed even under Articles 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, also, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge must be read to mean the order has been passed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and not under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C and as such, an intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 shall be maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of KIM WANSOO Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported as 2025 SCC Online SC 17.5
Keeping the issue of maintainability open, we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent No.1. Let notice be issued to respondents No.2 and 3 through all modes, returnable on 12.02.2025."
4. This matter was again listed on 07.04.2025. After hearing Mr.Neeraj Kumar Chadha, party-in-person for all the appellants and Mrs.Savitha Kulkarni, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Abhishek Marla learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Complainant, on the maintainability of the appeal, the appeal was reserved for judgment.
5. Though this Court is not venturing on the merits of the case, in view of the issue on maintainability of the writ appeal, we for a proper understanding, outline the facts of the present appeal as under:
Appellant No.1 is the husband of respondent No.3. Their marriage was solemnized on 09.07.2019 at Redwood Resorts, Morni Hills, Panchkula, Haryana. There are certain disputes between the appellant No.1 and respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 left the matrimonial home and returned to Haryana, to her parental home, wherein she has lodged a complaint against the appellants in Crime No.33/2021 before the City Police, Panipat, Haryana, for the 6 offences punishable under Sections-498A, 406, 354C, read with Section-34 of IPC. The appellants filed a writ petition under Articles-
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the charge-sheet filed by the Panipat Police Station in FIR No.33/2021 registered in Panipat, Haryana now pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat. During the pendency of the writ petition, Panipat Police came to Bengaluru for arresting the appellants, with the help of Bagalagunte Police under whose jurisdiction the appellants are residing. At that time, there were some altercations which ultimately resulted in registration of a FIR against the appellants in Crime No.50/2021, for the offences punishable under Sections-149, 353 and 354 of IPC. Subsequent to the filing of Crime No.50/2021, the appellants amended the writ petition seeking a prayer to quash Crime No.50/2021 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station against the appellants. The writ petition was listed before the Roster Bench under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., in view of circular issued by the Registry of this Court dated 10.02.2012. The circular reads as under:
"CIRCULAR Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to order that directions shall be issued to the concerned scrutiny branches at the Principal Bench, Bangalore, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga that an office objection shall be raised in all such writ petitions filed under Article 226/227 of the 7 Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR, Charge-sheet and other proceedings initiated under the provisions of Cr.P.C. that the Advocates shall henceforth mention that 'Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C'. The same shall be posted before the Bench having the roster of Criminal petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Therefore, the Officers/Officials working at Scrutiny Branches of the Principal Bench, Bangalore, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga are hereby instructed that henceforth while scrutinizing the writ petition/s filed seeking quashing of FIR, Charge-sheet and other proceedings initiated under the provisions of Cr.P.C that an office objection shall be raised in all such writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of FIR, Charge-sheet and other proceedings initiated under the provisions of Cr.P.C that the advocates/parties shall mention as 'Writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the same shall be posted before the Bench having the roster of Criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the Principal Bench, Bangalore, Circuit Benches at Dharwad and Gulbarga."
6. The learned Single Judge after contest allowed the writ petition partly, quashing FIR in Crime No.50/2021 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections-353, 354 and 149, read with Section-141 of IPC, however, dismissed the petition filed seeking to quash FIR in Crime No.33/2021 of the Panipat Police, Haryana and the charge-sheet 8 filed thereon for the offences punishable under Sections-498A, 406 and 354C read with Section-34 of IPC. It is this order of the learned Single Judge, called in question in this intra-court appeal by the appellants with the following prayer:
"1. Set-aside the para (iii) of the Order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17007/2021 and allow the Writ Petition No.17007/2021 prayer para II as prayed for.
2. Pass any order as deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity."
7. It is germane to extract the cause-title of the writ appeal filed by the appellants, for easy reference and for taking a decision on the maintainability of the appeal:
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION] WRIT APPEAL NO.1517/2024 (GM-RES) IN WRIT PETITION NO.17007/2021 (GM-RES)"
8. As stated supra the Registry of this Court raised an objection on the maintainability of the writ appeal in view of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SRHEE RAGHVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMJI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, supra.
9
9. Sri.Neeraj Kumar Chadha, party-in-person vehemently contends that the order passed by the learned single Judge is by exercising the power under Article-226(2) of Constitution of India and in view of the same, the writ appeal filed under Section-4 of the Act of 1961 is maintainable before the Division Bench. To buttress his arguments, he has relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and this Court and other High Courts. The cases mainly relied on by the party in person are as follows:
1. SHREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SRHEE RAGHVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMJI AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1
2. SRI LAXMAN AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA2
3. RAJESH KUMAR KAMALIA vs. B.M. KARUNESH3
4. SUSHILABAI LAXMINARAYAN MUDLIAR & OTHERS VS.
NIHALCHANDWAGHAJIBHAI SHAH AND OTHERS4
5. STATE OF PUNJAB vs. DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR AND ORS.5
6. RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU vs. R.K. MISHRA6
7. OMPRAKASH SRIVATSAVA vs. UNION OF INDIA7
8. NAVEEN CHANDRA.N. MAJITHIA vs. STATE OF MAHARASTRA8
10. Referring to the aforesaid judgments, the party-in-person contended that in a petition filed under Article - 226 of Constitution 2 W.A. No.100262/2021, dtd.23.02.2022 3 W.A. No.1356/2008, dtd. 31.08.2012 4 MANU/SC/0041/1992 5 AIR 2012 SC 364 6 MANU/SC/2105/2009 7 MANU/SC/3240/2006 8 MANU/SC/0549/2000 10 of India read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C., decided by the learned Single Judge shall be amenable to an intra-court appeal under Section 4 of Act of 1961.
11. The main limb of argument of the party-in-person is that, the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of Karnataka State and no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the State of Haryana. It is his further case that Article-226(2) of Constitution of India which was subsequently added by way of an amendment, confers power on the High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs to any Government or Authority or person on the cause of action wholly or in part arises notwithstanding that the such Government or Authority or Person is not within the territorial limits of the High Court.
12. He further contended that, the learned Single Judge has exercised power under Article-226(2) of Constitution of India, while dealing with the Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana State Police and not under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., as the said section speaks about inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. To buttress his arguments, he referred to the definition of High Court 11 under Section-2(e) of the Cr.P.C., which say, the High Court has been defined to mean "in relation to any State, the High Court for that State." Whereas the power under clause-(2) of Article-226 of the Constitution of India enjoins the powers to the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction even in respect of any Government, Authority or person which is not situated within the territories of the said High Court but for the reason that the whole or part of the cause of action has arisen within the territories of the concerned High Court. As per the party-in-person the entire allegations contained in the alleged complaint happened within the limits of Bengaluru i.e., in Karnataka. In these circumstances, the petition filed under Article-226(2) of the Constitution of India and the order passed by the learned Single Judge is amenable and maintainable under Section-4 of the Karnataka High Court Act 1961, in appeal.
13. The learned AGA, appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that though the petition was filed under Articles - 226 and 227 of Constitution of India but read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C., and in view of the circular the matter was listed before the roster bench dealing with criminal petitions under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. She further submitted that, the nomenclature under which the petition filed is not quite relevant, but the power which has been exercised by the Court requires to be considered. The learned Single 12 Judge exercised the power under Section-482 of Cr.P.C as the remedy sought is for quashing of criminal proceedings i.e., the FIR registered and charge-sheet filed there on against the appellants. That apart, even for the sake of arguments, if it is taken that the High Court has exercised power under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the same amounts to exercise of power under criminal jurisdiction, which is akin to exercise of power under Section-482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal is not maintainable under Section-4 of the Act of 1961. To buttress her arguments she relied on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in the case of SRI. LAXMAN AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS9, wherein this Court held that the writ appeal is not maintainable.
14. Refuting the contentions of the party-in-person Sri.Abishek Marla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submitted that, the complaint filed before the Haryana Police is maintainable. The Police have conducted investigation and filed final report in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.33/2021 and the charge-sheet filed thereon on merits. The 9 Writ Appeal No.100262/2021, dated 23.02.2022 13 same amounts to exercise of criminal jurisdiction by the High Court. Even if it is construed as power exercised under Article-226 of Constitution of India, then also writ appeal is not maintainable under Section - 4 of Act of 1961. To buttress his arguments he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RUPALI DEVI VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS10, stressing on paragraph No.16 to contend that Courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts committed by the husband or his relatives shall also have jurisdiction to entertain complaint alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section-498A of IPC. He also relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAM KISHAN FAUJI vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS11, to argue that even if the learned Single Judge has exercised the power under Article 226 the same amounts to exercise of criminal jurisdiction and as such no appeal is maintainable. He also relied on the judgment of SREEMATH JAGADGURU supra contending that the nomenclature will not decide the exercise of power by the learned Single Judge. The primary prayer is for getting the criminal proceedings quashed which is registered by the Haryana Police 10 (2019) 5 SCC 384 11 (2017) 5 SCC 533 14 against the appellants, and such a prayer is akin to exercising powers by the High Court under Section-482 of Cr.P.C, for the reason that, the appellants claimed the same as an abuse of process of Court, on the premise, the allegations made in the present criminal proceedings initiated before the Haryana Police, are different from the one in the earlier complaints before the Bagalagunte Police. He stated that the power exercised by the learned Single Judge has to be considered as the one exercised under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., and even if it is considered as the power exercised is under Article-226, the same is in exercise of criminal jurisdiction and not civil jurisdiction and hence an appeal under Section-4 of Act of 1961 is not maintainable
15. Having heard the parties and perused the records, the only question which arise for our consideration is as follows :
Whether the point of maintainability raised by the Registry in view of judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in the case of SREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA supra, is sustainable?
16. Before we answer the question framed, it is necessary to extract the provisions of law, viz., (i) Article-226, 227 of Constitution of India, (ii) Section-482 of Cr.P.C., and (iii) Section-4 15 of Act of 1961, which have a bearing on the outcome of the dispute of maintainability of the present appeal:
Article - 226 And 227 of Constitution of India :
"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, 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, including (writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(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.
3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose 16 favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which copy of such application is so furnished, whichever later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.]
4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of Article 32).
226A. xxx
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court.-
[(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may :
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:17
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor".
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces."
(ii) Section - 482 of Cr.P.C.:
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
(iii) Section - 4 of Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 :
"4. Appeals from decisions of a single Judge of the High Court.--An appeal from a judgment, decree, order or sentence passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the original jurisdiction of the High Court under this Act or under any law for the time being in force, shall lie to and be heard by a Bench consisting of two other Judges of the High Court."
17. Article-226 of the Constitution of India as we have extracted above, says about the power of High Courts to issue writs. Clause-(1) of Article - 226 empowers the High Courts to issue writs which are mentioned in the clause throughout the territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction against any person or 18 authority, including in appropriate cases against Government for the enforcement of the rights conferred on the party and for other purpose. Whereas clause-(2) of Article - 226 gives power to the High Court to exercise the same power beyond the jurisdiction, with a rider that the cause of action wholly or in part if arises in the jurisdiction of the concerned High court.
18. Section-482 of Cr.P.C. is an inherent power. In other words it is the power with which the High Court existed, which enjoins the power to the High Court with the opening words that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to give effect to any orders under this Code, or to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
19. As per the circular issued by the Registry of this Court dated 10.02.2012 wherein if any party seeks quashing of FIR, charge-sheet and other proceedings initiated under the provisions of Cr.P.C., in any writ under Article-226 / 227, was directed to include Section-482 of Cr.P.C. and the matter requires to be posted before the Bench having the roster of criminal matters under Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
19
20. A reading of Section-4 of the Act of 1961, clearly says that an appeal shall lie on the judgment, decree, sentence passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of the original jurisdiction under this Act or any other law for the time being force.
21. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, the reason for the appellants to invoke Article-226 of Constitution of India is only to bring their case under clause-(2) of the said Article, as they could not seek any remedy under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., let alone will not give them a right of appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The facts which are pleaded in the writ petition and the remedy sought are seeking to quash criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., on the premise that the same amounts to abuse of process of law, as the allegation made against the appellants in the complaint filed before the City Police Panipat, Haryana just opposite to the earlier statements made before the Bagalagunte Police in the State of Karnataka, as well as in the petition filed for divorce against the appellant No.1. Though the nomenclature of Article-226 is stated, however, the prayer sought is akin to invoking Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
22.1. So far as the judgments relied on by the party-in- person is concerned in the case of SREEMAD JAGADGURU 20 SHANKARACHARYA, supra the Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The reason for the same has been precisely stated in paragraph No.11, which we have already reproduced above.
22.2. In the case of SRI. LAXMAN AND OTHERS vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS case supra, this Court is of the view that the learned Single Judge has exercised power under Section-482 of Cr.P.C., though the petition is filed under Articles- 226 and 227 read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C., and in that eventuality held that the writ appeal is not maintainable as per paragraph no.21 of the judgment.
22.3. So far as the case in RAJESH KUMAR KAMALIA vs. B.M. KARUNESH stated supra is concerned, the facts of the said case is altogether different to the facts of the present case, wherein a transfer of FIR from one Police station to another Police Station was sought and it was allowed the learned Single Judge. In appeal a Division Bench of this Court, declined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
22.4. So far as in the case of SUSHILABAI
LAXMINARAYAN MUDLIAR & OTHERS VS.
NIHALCHANDWAGHAJIBHAI SHAH AND OTHERS, supra the 21 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the ancillary directions given under Article-227 of the Constitution of India, will not take away the right of the appeal to a party which has infact filed a petition under Section-226 of Constitution of India, where substantial part of the order is sought to be appealed was against order under Article-226 of the Constitution of India that is not the case in the present appeal.
22.5. So far as the judgment in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs. DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR AND OTHERS supra, the question fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court has been stated in paragraph No.3 of the said judgment which reads as under:
"3. The Appeals herein raise peculiar substantial questions of law as to whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the High Court can ask a particular investigating agency to investigate a case following a particular procedure through an exceptionally unusual method which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions of Cr.P.C."22
The facts of the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is different from the facts of the present case involved in the appeal. The said judgment is not applicable to decide the issue involved.
22.6. In the case of RAJENDRAN CHINGARAVELU VS. R.K. MISHRA supra, the question involved in the said case before the Hon'ble Apex Court is whether the High Court was right in declining to exercise its power under Article - 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.5 clearly held that the court can exercise its power under Clause-(2) of Article-226 of Constitution of India to quash the proceedings registered outside the jurisdiction of the Court where part of the cause of action has taken place within the jurisdiction of the said High Court, which reads as under:
"5. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as the seizure took place at Chennai (Tamil Nadu), the Appellant could not maintain the writ petition before it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a Petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction. In this case, the genesis for the 23 entire episode of search, seizure and detention was the action of the security/ intelligence officials at Hyderabad Airport (in Andhra Pradesh) who having inspected the cash carried by him, alerted their counterparts at the Chennai Airport that Appellant was carrying a huge sum of money, and required to be intercepted and questioned. A part of the cause of action therefore clearly arose in Hyderabad. It is also to be noticed that the consequential income tax proceedings against him, which he challenged in the writ petition, were also initiated at Hyderabad. Therefore his writ petition ought not to have been rejected on the ground of want of jurisdiction."
The appeal preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court was against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction, as such, the said judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
22.7. In the case of OMPRAKASH SRIVATSAVA vs. UNION OF INDIA, supra the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with a case wherein the Delhi High Court had declined to entertain the writ petition holding that the Allahabad High Court would also have jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the writ petitioner and can deal with conditions of prisoners in that state more effectively, though the Delhi High Court may have jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court set-aside the order passed by the High Court and 24 remitted the matter to the High Court having proper jurisdiction by stating in paragraph No.17 which we reproduce as under:
17. In the instant case the High Court has not dealt with the question as to whether it had jurisdiction, to deal with the writ petition. It only observed that Delhi High court may have jurisdiction, but the issues relating to condition of prisoners in the State of U.P. can be more effectively dealt with by the Allahabad High Court. As noted supra, there were two grievances by the appellant. But only one of them i.e. the alleged lack of medical facilities has been referred to by the High Court. It was open to the Delhi High Court to say that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. The High Court in the impugned order does not say so. On the contrary, it says that jurisdiction may be there, but the Allahabad High Court can deal with the matter more effectively. That is not certainly a correct way to deal with the writ petition. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh hearing on merits, A prayer has been made for release of the appellant on parole for the reasons indicated in the application. We are not inclined to pass any order on the said application. The same is rejected. The appeal is disposed of as aforesaid. No cost.
In view of the paragraph supra, the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not applicable to the case on hand.
22.8. In the case of NAVEEN CHANDRA.N. MAJITHIA vs STATE OF MAHARASTRA, supra the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, the High Court can exercise the power 25 under Clause-(2) of Article - 226 of Constitution of India. The appeal that was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court was against the order passed by the Bombay High Court in the writ petition, as stated in paragraph No.2 of the judgment which reads as under:
"2. This appeal filed by the writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.3.1999 of the Bombay High Court summarily dismissing W.P. No. 1683/88 Naveenchandra N. Maji v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. on the ground of want jurisdiction.
As such, the judgment is not applicable to the case on hand.
23. From the judgments referred and relied on by the party- in-person, there is no dispute that the Court can exercise power under Clause-(2) of Article-226 of Constitution of India even against the Authority or Government outside the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, provided, a whole or part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court concerned. Though the petition is filed under Articles - 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, but read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C. The writ petition is filed by the appellants is only to contend that under Clause-(2), the High Court can exercise its power under Article-226 of Constitution of India even beyond jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge decided the matter on merits holding that there are disputed facts and prima-facie materials against the appellants for 26 continuation of the proceedings and held that the same does not amount to abuse of process of law, as the appellants have not made out a case for granting the relief sought by them. The reasons for the conclusion by the learned Single Judge are stated in paragraph Nos.55, 56 and 57, which reads as under:
"55. On perusal of the complaint and the statement of family members of the complainant reveals the family respondent No.3 has spend lot of money toward the marriage at Panchkula, Haryana and had given gold and cash to the petitioners. They also paid extra amounts during the engagement ceremony and the marriage was held at a Redwood resorts at Panchkula, Haryana. She has specifically made serious allegation against the petitioner Nos.1 to 4, alleging that they demanded money from respondent No.3 and treated her like paying guest in the matrimonial home. There are various serious allegation made against accused Nos.1 to 4 about the harassment made to respondent No.3. Hence, it cannot be said that these are all omnibus allegations against the petitioners. The list of documents, bills all are produced for having purchased the gold ornaments and spending money toward the hotels, resorts, etc., Therefore, it is all a matter of trial and this Court cannot conduct a mini trial for quashing the FIR or charge sheet filed by Panipat police in Haryana State.
56. The apart, the petitioners have stated that there is no serious allegations in the divorce petition filed by respondent No.3 (annulling the marriage between them for non consummation of marriage). There are serious allegations in the complaint. The averments made in the matrimonial case 27 may be different from the allegation made in the complaint. If, any contradictions are there they cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint or charge sheet. That has to be confronted with the maker of document / respondent-3 in cross examination as per Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act. The alleged sexual harassment is made by accused No.4 in the house against respondent No.3, that has to be adjudicated by the Court of Magistrate, who conducted the Trial. The disputed facts cannot be considered by the High Court for quashing the charge sheet. Therefore, in my view the contentions raised by the petitioner/party-in-person for quashing the FIR or charges sheet filed before the Panipat Court by the Panipat police, this Court cannot quash the charge sheet, merely because the petitioners are residing 2000 k.m. away from Bengaluru and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are not able to travel, as they are aged persons. That cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings.
57. The another contention raised by the petitioner is that the paramour of respondent No.3 said to be influencing the police/advocate and even the Punjab and Haryana High Court, that cannot be accepted. Merely, because in the matrimonial case, his advocate not filed statement of objections even after receiving fee, the petitioner cannot suspect entire judicial system in Panjab and Haryana State. On this ground charge sheet cannot be quashed."
24. It is clear from the judgment of this Court in the case of SREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHVARA SWAMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND 28 OTHERS, supra that the nomenclature used in the petition is not the criteria to consider that the petition in fact filed for exercise of power under Article-226 of Constitution of India. Though petition is filed under Articles-226 and 227 of Constitution of India, but the same is read with Section-482 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the petition was actually filed one under Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
25. The learned Single Judge declined to quash the proceedings holding that the appellants have not made out any grounds to quash the proceedings under the charge-sheet filed against them by the Haryana Police. The learned AGA is right in submitting that the appeal is not maintainable, as the power exercised clearly shows that the same is one under Section-482 of Cr.P.C.
26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAMKISHAN FAUJI VS. STATE OF HARYANA12, clearly held at paragraph Nos.65, 66 and 67 that the proceedings passed if amounts to exercise of criminal jurisdiction cannot be called in question in a writ appeal, which reads as under:
"65. In the case at hand, the writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the recommendation of the Lokayukta. The said recommendation 12 2017 (5) SCC 533 29 would have led to launching of criminal prosecution, and, as the factual matrix reveals, FIR was registered and criminal investigation was initiated. The learned single Judge analysed the report and the ultimate recommendation of the statutory authority and thought it seemly to quash the same and after quashing the same, as he found that FIR had been registered, he annulled it treating the same as a natural consequence. Thus, the effort of the writ petitioner was to avoid a criminal investigation and the final order of the writ court is quashment of the registration of FIR and the subsequent investigation. In such a situation, to hold that the learned single Judge, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has passed an order in a civil proceeding as the order that was challenged was that of the quasi-judicial authority, that is, the Lokayukta, would be conceptually fallacious. It is because what matters is the nature of the proceeding, and that is the litmus test.
66. In view of the aforesaid prismatic reasoning, the irresistible conclusion is that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable before the Division Bench and, consequently, the order passed therein is wholly unsustainable and, accordingly, it is set aside. However, as the State had been diligently agitating its grievance in a legal forum which it thought had jurisdiction, we grant liberty to the State to assail the order of the learned single Judge in accordance with law.
67. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the State to challenge the order of the learned single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs.30
Appeal allowed."
27. The cause-title of the writ appeal which we have already extracted above clearly shows appellants have filed the appeal under Civil Appellate jurisdiction and tried to bring the order passed by the learned Single Judge as one deciding Civil rights amenable under Section-4 of the Act of 1961. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RAM FAUJI, so also as per Circular of the Registry stated supra, writ appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge exercising a criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable.
28. Though the learned AGA and learned counsel appearing for the defacto-complainant argued on the point of maintainability of complaint before the Haryana Police cannot be dealt with and gone into, as the matter reserved only for consideration of maintainability of writ appeal under Section-4 of Act of 1961, in view of the office objection raised by the Registry on the basis of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SREEMAD JAGADGURU SHANKARACHARYA SHREE SHREE RAGHAVESHVARA SWAMI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS, supra.
31
29. For the reasons stated supra, we answer the question framed in 'Affirmative', holding that the writ appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to quash the proceedings in Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana Police, now culminated in charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections-498(A), 406 and 354-C, read with Section-34 of IPC, is not maintainable. In view of the same, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The office objections raised by the Registry is sustained and the writ appeal filed calling in question the order dated 05.09.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17007/2021 (GM-RES), whereby declining the prayer seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.33/2021 of Haryana Police, Panipat, and charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections-498(A), 406 and 354-C, read with Section-34 of IPC, is Dismissed as not maintainable.
ii) No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE JJ CT: BRS