Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 154 (TS)

Nori Kalyana Sundar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2021-06-01

KUNURU LAKSHMAN

body2021
ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: ".....declaring that arraigning the petitioner herein as the accused in Cr. No. 294/2020 on the file of the SHO Misrot who is the 2nd respondent herein at the instance of the other respondents as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice, in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution of India more particularly Article 21, and in violation of the law governing the agreement between M/s. MP Road Development Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Transstroy Bhopal Bypass Toll ways Pvt. Ltd. and other laws for the time being in force and consequently quash the said FIR against the petitioner." 2. The Registry of this Court has returned the writ petition, raising the following objection:- "Please clarify, how this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court questioning the FIR in Cr. No. 294/2020 registered on the file of the S.H.O. Misrot, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh State, which is not located within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has re-submitted the writ petition with the following explanation:- "In view of Article 226(2) this Hon'ble Court can exercise jurisdiction is the instant matter as it relates to fundamental rights of the accused who is resident of Telangana State and no more an employee of the company with which State of M.P. (complainant) entered into agreement with part of course of action arose as the FIR did not make the company accused but a consultant Chartered Accountants was made accused impacting his fundamental rights guaranteed under Indian Constitution. Copy of Article 226 of Constitution of India is enclosed herewith." 4. As stated above, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 294 of 2020 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 409 of IPC. 5. Sri B. Ravi Kiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, would submit that the petitioner is a Consultant to Transstroy Bhopal Bypass Tollways Pvt. Ltd. and the said Company is situated in Hyderabad. The offence alleged against the petitioner herein is under Section 409 of IPC. 5. Sri B. Ravi Kiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, would submit that the petitioner is a Consultant to Transstroy Bhopal Bypass Tollways Pvt. Ltd. and the said Company is situated in Hyderabad. The agreement between the said Company and respondent No. 3 was entered in Hyderabad and therefore, part of cause of action arose in Hyderabad, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 294 of 2020 on the file of Station House Officer, Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh, is maintainable. 6. In view of the said submission, it is apt to reproduce Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:- "226(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the caus of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 7. Article 226 of the Constitution of India deals with power of High Courts to issue certain writs. As per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories. 8. By referring to the said article, Sri B. Ravi Kiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that part of cause of action arose in Hyderabad, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the above said FIR is maintainable. 9. 8. By referring to the said article, Sri B. Ravi Kiran Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that part of cause of action arose in Hyderabad, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the above said FIR is maintainable. 9. A perusal of the above said FIR No. 294 of 2020 pending on the file of Station House Officer, Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh would reveal that respondent No. 3, who is the Departmental Manager of MPRDC, a resident of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh has filed the said complaint with the police of Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh, who, in turn, registered a case in Crime No. 294 of 2020 for the offence under Section 409 of IPC against the petitioner herein and the Managing Director of the said Transstroy Bhopal Bypass Tollways Pvt. Ltd. The allegation made by respondent No. 3 in the said complaint is that the accused, including the petitioner herein, have committed criminal breach of trust and breach of contract entered between the above said two companies. Basing on the said complaint, the police of Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh have registered the above said crime against the petitioner herein and other accused. 10. As discussed supra, the petitioner herein sought to quash the proceedings in he said Crime No. 294 of 2020 pending on the file of Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh on the ground that the contents of the complaint lacks the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioner herein. The petitioner, being a Consultant, has nothing to do with the said contract entered between the above said two companies. Therefore, there is no breach of trust, much less criminal breach of trust, by the petitioner herein and moreover, the petitioner herein is neither a public servant, nor a banker, nor a merchant, or an agent, which are prerequisites to maintain a complaint for the offence under Section 409 of IPC. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition is maintainable. 11. However, as stated above, the police of Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District Madhya Pradesh, have registered the said crime against the petitioner herein and other accused. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the present writ petition is maintainable. 11. However, as stated above, the police of Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District Madhya Pradesh, have registered the said crime against the petitioner herein and other accused. The said Police Station, where the above said crime was registered, is within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Bhopal. There is no cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, according to this Court, the Registry of this Court has rightly raised the above said objection. 12. Similar issue fell for consideration in CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Narayan Diwakar (1999) 4 SCC 656 . In the said case, accused was an IAS Officer, Collector, Daman from October, 1992 to April, 1993. He was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh. Prior to that, a case was registered by CBI, Mumbai. On receipt of FIR, a wireless message was sent by the S.P., CBI, ACB, Bombay to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh with a request to advise the accused to meet Inspector, of Police, CBI, ACB, Bombay in connection with the said crime registered against him. Basing on the said wireless message, accused filed writ petition in Gauhati High Court to quash the said FIR, the said writ petition was allowed and FIR was quashed, holding that since the accused received wireless message at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh, part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court. Therefore, wit petition is maintainable in view of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The said order was confirmed by a Division Bench. Matter was carried in SLP and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and judgment in the writ petition and confirmed in appeal were set aside. 13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the discussion made supra, since the present writ petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 294 of 2020 registered on the file of the Station House Officer, Misrot Police Station, Bhopal District, Madhya Pradesh, which is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable. Registry is directed to return the papers to the petitioner.