JUDGMENT 1. These two petitions filed by the same petitioners are being disposed of by common order. 2. The petitioners in WP No. 173/2014 pray for following substantive reliefs: “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an order or a writ in the nature of Writ of mandamus quashing the FIR No. 1 of 2014 registered with the D.C.P. Police Station, Ahmedabad annexed at Exhibit M to the Petition.” 3. In writ petition No. 293/2014 the prayer is as under: “(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the proceedings of the Respondent No. 2 in seizing the bank accounts of the Petitioners through letters dated 14.1.2014 annexed at Exhibits and to direct Respondent No. 3 and 4 to de-freeze the said accounts being: Union Bank of India, Khar Branch: (I) FCRA Account No. 36910210802885 of Sabrang Trust. (II) A/C No. 369102010003883 of Teesta Setalvad. (III) A/C/No. 36910210006884 of Javed Anand. IDBI Bank, Khar Branch: (I) FCRA Account No. 01404000105705 of CJP (II) A.C. No. 014104000204736 of CJP. (III) A.C. No. 014104000142595 of Teesta Setalvad. (IV) A.C. No. 0141000142601 of Javed Anand.” 4. The petitioners submit that the petitioner no. 1 is Secretary of Citizens for Justice and Peace, a trust, registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, a forum which has been supporting the victims of mass carnage which took place in Gujarat in the year 2002. She is also a trustee fo Sabrang Trust. The petitioner no. 1 is a journalist, a human right activist, co-editor of a magazine known as “Communilasm Combat”. The petitioner no. 2 is husband of petitioner no. 1 and a Journalist, social activist who has supported the cause of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 is a trustee alongwith the petitioner no. 1 in the said trust. 5. A FIR came to be registered for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and the Information Technology Act 72 A. One Firozkhan, Saeedkhan Pathan, resident of Ahmedabad city complained to the police that he was residing in Bungalow no. 18 at Gulberg Society, Chamanpura, Omnagar Road at Meghaninagar with his family at the time of Godhra riots. In the year 2002 after Godhra incident, Gulberg society was burnt by anti-social elements and 68 persons were killed including his grand mother Kherunnisha A. Pathan and his other closed relatives. 18 at Gulberg Society, Chamanpura, Omnagar Road at Meghaninagar with his family at the time of Godhra riots. In the year 2002 after Godhra incident, Gulberg society was burnt by anti-social elements and 68 persons were killed including his grand mother Kherunnisha A. Pathan and his other closed relatives. They were residing in relief camp for three months. At that time Raiskhan Azizkhan Pathan and Teesta Setalwad met them and told them that they run one NGO. They had taken his interview. It was informed to him that they would publish his interview in their magazine namely ‘Communalism Combat’ and would help him economically, legally and assured help whenever he needed. The Complainant further stated that after Godhra riots they organized programme for paying their tribute to, the departed souls, at Gulberg Society on 28th February. Every year such programme is being arranged. On one occasion Teesta Setlvad assured support to the cause of Gulberg society. Petitioner no. 1 helped them till the trial went on. It is alleged that petitioner no. 1 did not provide any economic help. 6. The Complainant further alleges that in the year 2007, Teesta Setalvad's man one Raiskhan A. Pathan, resident of Mumbai met them and told them that they would make arrangement to pay rent of their premises since the year 2002. A meeting was arranged at Mirzapur. In this meeting Gulberg Society members, Raiskhan Pathan, Teesta Setalwad and M.M. Tirmizi were present. When it was told by Raiskhan to Teesta Setalvad that the members of the Gulberg Society wanted to sell their houses, she got angry at Raiskhan and told them that they should not indulge in selling their property and informed that she would handle it in her own way and asked Raiskhan to leave the office. Petitioner no. 1 promised them that she would pay value of their houses within a month. In 2008 again Teesta Setalvad had visited the annual meeting place. It is alleged that every year since 2007 Teesta Setalvad was holding meeting calling affected persons and media persons. She prepared CDs of opinions of affected persons. The Complainant further alleges that on 28th February, 2012 Teesta Setalvad organized a large, well planned programme at Gulberg Society. A resolution was passed. It is alleged that every year since 2007 Teesta Setalvad was holding meeting calling affected persons and media persons. She prepared CDs of opinions of affected persons. The Complainant further alleges that on 28th February, 2012 Teesta Setalvad organized a large, well planned programme at Gulberg Society. A resolution was passed. It is alleged that though it was promised that Museum will be built in the memory of riot victims but so far these promises were not fulfilled in spite of the fact that crores of rupees were collected by the petitioners, allegedly for the cause of the victims of the Godhra riots which took place in the State of Gujarat. The Complainant alleges that the organizers of such Seminars illegally collected funds of crores of rupees. It is alleged that Teesta Setalvad, Tanveer Jafri, Father Cedric Prakash and R.B. Shree Kumar (Retd. D.G.P) had visited America. The Complainant alleges that Teesta Setalvad and Tanveer jafri jointly planned a conspiracy of gathering photographs of affected persons, made CDs, websites against the desire of riots affected persons. It is alleged that from the year 2009 to 2011, the accused had collected Rs. 63 lakhs and the Sabrang Trust had collected Rs. 88 lakhs from local and foreign countries. These funds were utilized for personal reasons. 7. An affidavit-in-reply was filed by on behalf of respondent no. 2 and 3 i.e. the State of Gujarat and Dy. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. 8. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply. In Writ Petition No. 293/2014 the petitioner challenges freezing of the personal accounts of the petitioner and the members accounts under the orders made by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Cell, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that reading the complaint as it is, no offence is made out for registering the FIR under Section 406 and 420 of Penal Code, 1860. Element of cheating as alleged by the complainant is absent. There was no occasion for the petitioners to induce the Complainant. Neither the element of criminal breach of trust is made out by the Complainant. Therefore, the First Information Report be quashed and set aside. In respect of second petition learned Senior Counsel submitted that the action of freezing the account of the petitioner is harsh, unreasonable and act of vengeance exhibited by the Gujarat police. Neither the element of criminal breach of trust is made out by the Complainant. Therefore, the First Information Report be quashed and set aside. In respect of second petition learned Senior Counsel submitted that the action of freezing the account of the petitioner is harsh, unreasonable and act of vengeance exhibited by the Gujarat police. The petitioner runs the trust in fair and transparent manner. Its accounts are audited. Considering the voluminous work done by the petitioners personally and the service rendered by the trust in larger public interest the accounts be defreezed. The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that part of the amount is received from ford foundation of United States of America. The action of the respondent according to learned Counsel is vexatious and oppressive. The petitioners trust are covered under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner resides in Mumbai. The trusts are registered in Mumbai. Therefore, part of cause of action arises in Mumbai for approaching Bombay High Court. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 raise the preliminary objection to the maintainability of these petitions in the Bombay High Court on the ground that the FIR was registered in the State of Gujarat. The substantive cause of action had arisen in the State of Gujarat. Merely because the petitioners reside in Mumbai and trusts are registered in Mumbai, this Court would not get jurisdiction for entertaining these petitions. The learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had applied for grant of anticipatory bail by filing criminal application no. 14/2004 in Bombay High Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 10th January, 2014 had granted transit bail to approach appropriate Court in Gujarat. The Counsel submits that said order was challenged in the Apex Court by the petitioners. The Apex Court had declined to grant relief to the petitioner but allowed the petitioner to move appropriate Court at Gujarat by an order dated 24th February, 2014. 11. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 State of Gujarat submitted that criminal case is under investigation. There are serious allegations made against the petitioners and the trust. The functioning of the trust, the utilisation of the funds received by the trust are under scrutiny. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. 11. Mr. Girish Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 State of Gujarat submitted that criminal case is under investigation. There are serious allegations made against the petitioners and the trust. The functioning of the trust, the utilisation of the funds received by the trust are under scrutiny. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. The Complainant has made serious allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, it is imperative that the investigation be allowed to be carried out in the larger public interest. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on the contentions raised in the affidavit-in-reply to counter the submissions of the petitioners. The learned Counsel has also placed reliance on following judgments: Metkore Alloys & Industries Ltd. v. The Union of India, CDJ 2014 APHC 171; Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, CDJ 2007 SC 625; Musaraf Hossain Khan v. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., CDJ 2006 SC 202; Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, CDJ 2000 SC 1139. 12. We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record placed before us. In the facts of the case we are of the view that desirability of entertaining these petitions by Bombay High Court requires consideration. 13. It is a matter of fact that FIR No. 1/2014 was registered against the petitioner in the State of Gujarat. The substantive cause of action had arisen in the State of Gujarat. The petitioners and their trust claims to have rendered their services to the Godhra riots victims. The petitioners extended certain promises to the riots affected families, accordingly the complaint. In respect of grant of anticipatory bail the Bombay High Court had also taken a view that the petitioners would approach Court in Gujarat. The said view was confirmed by the Apex Court. 14. In respect of relief seeking defreezing of accounts, we are of the view that same is a sequel to the registration of the FIR against the petitioner in the State of Gujarat. The said action of defreezing is consequential to and arises out of the registration of FIR. The First Information Report was registered on 4th January, 2014. The investigation has already started. Considering the facts and circumstances in its entirety we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach Court at Gujarat for redressal of their grievance. The First Information Report was registered on 4th January, 2014. The investigation has already started. Considering the facts and circumstances in its entirety we are of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioners to approach Court at Gujarat for redressal of their grievance. In the facts of the case mere residence of the petitioners and registration of trust in Mumbai could not be taken to be a predominant factor for entertaining the petitions here on the reasoning that part of cause of action had arisen in Mumbai. 15. The place of residence could not be a criteria to determine territorial jurisdiction of a Court. As we are of the opinion that in the totality of circumstances these petitions ought not to be entertained before Bombay High Court, we need not address issues on merits raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. We are not inclined to entertain the petitions. With these observations, both writ-petitions stand disposed of. 16. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised by the contesting parties in these petitions.