Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. In so far as the contention of the petitioner the original document not seized, by the Investigation Officer, one Syed Munavar Ali(LW.4), Joint Sub Registrar, Bhavani Nagar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad examined to speak about the documents registered in his office. Even before examination of listed prosecution witnesses https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.28084 & 28085 of 2007 before the trial Court, the statements and documents collected by the Investigation Officer cannot be tested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Apart from LW.5, one other witness (viz.) V.Baskaran, Vice President of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., examined by the Investigation Officer, as witness, to speak about the Equitable Mortgage created by the 2nd Respondent in their favour. This statement of witnesses and the documents cannot be brushed aside.

26. It is an admitted facts that the accused are permanent residents of Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh. The properties forming subject matter of the criminal case is situated in Ranga Reddy District, Andhra pradesh. The documents executed in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the registration of the sale deeds executed by A1 on the basis of the powers of attorney made at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhavani nagar, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh. According to the defacto complainant, since the Company has its Registered Office in Chennai, the complaint lodged, cannot be countenanced for the reason that insofar as the jurisdiction of criminal Courts is concerned, it has no nexus to the complaint and does not constitute any cause of action for maintaining the complaint in Chennai. The jurisdiction with respect to cause of action, scene of occurrence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  Crl.O.P.Nos.28084 & 28085 of 2007 witnesses including the accused, is from Andhra Pradesh. Neither the cause of action nor the place of occurrence could bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Chennai. Hence, the charge sheet cannot be tried by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. No part of the occurrence as alleged took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Chennai, for institution of the case and therefore the prosecution of the petitioner on the basis of the F.I.R. which was lodged at Chennai, liable to be quashed.