Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCR.A/934/2008 3/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 934 of 2008 ========================================================= JINOFER BHUJWALA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JB PARDIWALA for Applicant(s) : 1, MRS.MANISHA LAVKUMAR SHAH, ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for Respondent: 1, None for Respondent(s) : 2 - 3. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 17/06/2008 ORAL ORDER
Mr.J.B.Pardiwala, learned Advocate for the petitioner.
as the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition
seeking quashment of the complaint filed before the learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.17, Mazagaon
(State of Maharashtra) is concerned, the learned advocate has placed
reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Navinchandra N. Majithia, (2000) 7 SCC 640, to submit that the
maintainability, or otherwise of the writ petition before the High
Court depends on whether the cause of action for filing the same
arose, wholly or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of that
Court. Taking the Court through the complaint, it is pointed out that
the entire cause of action has arisen within the State of Gujarat.
merits of the case, it is submitted that as the entire cause of
action has arisen within the State of Gujarat, the learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mazagaon had no jurisdiction to deal
with the case. Attention of the Court is drawn to the provisions of
section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) to
point out that sub section (1) has been amended to make it obligatory
upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond
his jurisdiction, he shall inquire into the case himself or direct
investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as
he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not, there was sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused. It is accordingly
submitted that the learned Magistrate was not justified in directly
issuing process against the petitioners, who undisputedly are
residing beyond his jurisdiction, without making inquiry as envisaged
under sub-section (1) of section 202.
is submitted that the dispute in question is essentially of rendition
of accounts and in the words of the complainant himself when the
complainant says that they are not satisfied with the manner in which
the petitioner has rendered accounts then under such circumstances,
the Civil Suit is the right remedy for the purpose of adjudication
and for which the Civil Suit is already filed by the complainant. It
is accordingly submitted that in the circumstances it cannot be said
that the petitioner has committed any offence as alleged.
the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the petitioner,
issue Notice returnable on 14th July, 2008. By way of
ad-interim relief, further proceedings of Criminal Case
No.60/MISC/2007 pending before the learned Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.17, Mazgaon at Mumbai, State of
Maharashtra are hereby stayed.
Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State of Gujarat waives service of notice. Direct Service is
permitted qua respondents No.2 and 3.
be heard with Special Criminal Application No.379 of 2008.