Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, Superintendent of Police, District- Changlang and the Officer-in-Charge of Miao Police Station being the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4 respectively.

4. The respondent no.5, the complainant/ informant of the aforesaid police case did not appear and filed any counter affidavit/show cause despite service of notice effected through respondent no.4.

5. At the hearing of the case the stand of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 is to the effect that since after lodging of the first information report/complaint the accused persons approached the complainant at Miao in Arunachal Pradesh for amicable settlement where the complainant was residing with her parents will also have a cause of action for the alleged offences, and as such, the case can be lodged/filed in the State of Arunachal Pradesh which constituted continuous offence. Besides the above factual stand, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that under the provisions of section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no High Court can direct the sub- ordinate Court under the jurisdiction of another High Court for transfer of the case since the power vests with the Supreme Court of India only. Therefore, according to the above respondents, on this count as well the writ application must fail.

11. The contention of the petitioner that since admittedly no offence has been committed at any place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Bihta police station the aforesaid first information report registered at Miao police station vide Miao P.S. Case No. 40 of 2006 ought to have been forwarded to the Bihta police station since all the alleged occurrences had occurred at Bihta and therefore allegations are required to be investigated at Bihta police station, has substance. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors has categorically held that the High Court under Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India has jurisdiction to issue direction for transfer of such cases where the cause of action have occurred within its territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have no application in the facts of the present case. Under the aforesaid provision the Supreme Court can transfer any case from one Court to another in the Country irrespective of the cause of action at any place whereas under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can quash/transfer the case from the place where no cause of action accrued to the place where the cause of action arose for initiating the criminal/civil proceedings.