Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 267 (JK)

Pitamber Singh Langeh v. Pitamber Singh Langeh

2014-07-03

JANAK RAJ KOTWAL

body2014
1. Petitioner invokes writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to issue a writ, order or direction for quashing a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act filed against him by respondent before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Meham in District, Rohtak. 2. Given that the complaint has been filed and is pending in a Court in the State of Haryana, the question of jurisdiction is taken up first. 3. Heard Mr. R. P. Sangra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Mr. Sangra, would say that the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court and that writ jurisdiction of a High Court can be invoked if cause of action in the whole or partially arises within the local limit of the jurisdiction of that Court. In this backdrop, Mr. Sangra would say further that since bailable warrant of arrest issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meham has been served upon the petitioner at Jammu so this Court has the jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. In support, Mr. Sangra, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in `Union of India v. Narinder Singh Mehta', 1996 KLJ 470. 5. It needs to be noticed that the petitioner seeks quashing of a complaint filed against him and pending before a Judicial Magistrate mainly on the ground that the allegations against him are fabricated, manipulated, illegal and against the provisions of law. Power to quash criminal proceedings before a subordinate criminal Court is specially conferred on this High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State (for short the State Code). Similar power is conferred on other High Courts of the Country under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Central Code). The relief sought by the petitioner in this case is to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the State Constitution. The nature of a petition, however, is governed mainly by the relief claimed and not by the name or nomenclature of the petition given by the petitioner. The nature of a petition, however, is governed mainly by the relief claimed and not by the name or nomenclature of the petition given by the petitioner. This in effect is a petition under section 561-A of the State Code and cannot be said to be or treated as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the State Constitution. 6. The term `any Court' used in section 482 of the Central Code (section 561-A of the State Code) refers to a Court subordinate to the High Court exercising the jurisdiction. Under section 561-A of the State Code this High Court can exercise power of quashing criminal proceedings, like a complaint, only if the same is pending before a Court subordinate to this Court and not before a Court beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Situation would not change even if petitioner names the petition as Writ petition and not a petition under section 561-A of the State Code. 7. Viewed, thus, this writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction alongwith connected CMA(s).