Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"All legal proceedings in connection with or arising out of the agreement shall be instituted and carried on in the Courts of Ernakulam only and Courts at Ernakulam shall have jurisdiction to decide the same."

10. Based on this, the petitioner (original accused) has filed Suit No. 157 of 1998 in the Court of Ernakulam at Kerala on 23rd March, 1998, and prayed for a decree of Rs. 45,47,862/-with 18% interest from the date of the Suit against the respondent/complainant. The said Suit was resisted by the Written Statement dated 16th October, 1999. The said Suit is still pending. In the Written Statement filed by the complainant, apart from resistance on merit, specific averments about fraud, false representations and breach of trust have been made. The averments made therein shows the grievance of the respondent/complainant against the petitioner (original accused) in regard to fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust.

11. The Complaint in question dated 28th July, 1999, further endorsed the said averments of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust as contemplated under Section 420 of the Cr.P.C. and of Section 406, 409 IPC. It is clear from the record that the Complaint is dated 28th July, 1999, whereas the Written Statement is of 16th October, 1999.

12. The clauses of those agreements, as referred and reproduced above, definitely gives rights to the parties to initiate appropriate civil proceedings before the agreed Forum. The commercial transactions and such agreed terms, including the term of the selecting or restricting the jurisdiction to settle particular disputes arising out of such agreements, are permissible and valid and the parties are bound by the same. In the present case, accordingly, petitioner (original accused) has already initiated a Civil Suit in Ernakulam Court at Kerala and the same is pending. The complainant has already filed the Written Statement and resisted the same. However, positive averments are being made by the respondent/complainant about fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust.

(e) The Apex Court has already held, based on Sections 177, 189 and 239 of the Cr.P.C., 1898, that for an offence committed in pursuance of conspiracy, the Court having jurisdiction to try such offences can also try the offence of conspiracy even if committed outside its jurisdiction.

19. The authority cited by the learned Advocate for the petitioner in the case of Jai Parkash (supra) is distinguishable on facts itself. There was no cause of action which had arisen at Delhi in that case, except the fact that the respondent had his Head Office at Delhi. All the agreements and related invoices were sent and exchanged between the parties at its Branch Office at Bhadohi and the Civil Suit was accordingly filed and was pending at Bhadohi. The Court, therefore, held that the Complaint under Section 406 of IPC was not maintainable at New Delhi for want of jurisdiction and the proceedings of issuance of summons were quashed and set aside. In the present case, in view of the facts noted above, the advertisement and/or publicity of the film, itself was initiated and issued from Mumbai. The Main Office of the respondent/complainant is at Mumbai. The petitioner (original accused) was attracted by the said advertisement and accordingly, after due telephonic talks from Mumbai, visited the respondent/complainant at its Main Office at Mumbai for discussion and settled the terms regarding the distributorship of the film. The basic agreement to send the accounts weekly or monthly at the Mumbai Office, as referred above, cannot be overlooked. The allegations of fraud, cheating, misrepresentation and criminal breach of trust as made in the Complaint, as well as, raised in the Written Statement by the complainant are also relevant. In the present case, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no cause of action or that no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. On the contrary, as observed by the learned Sessions Judge, the jurisdictional objection, as raised, may be relevant for the Civil proceedings in view of the Clauses in the agreement, but that itself cannot affect or takes away the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court like the Metropolitan Magistrate at Mumbai to issue summons and/or to proceed with the Complaint in accordance with law, especially when "part of cause of action" for the offences of cheating, fraud, criminal breach of trust, arose also at Mumbai.