IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 13103 of 2006(I)
1. M.P.ABDUL RAZAK,(RAZAK FROOQUE),
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S.SOUTHERN INDIA TRADING CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :14/12/2006
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.C.NO.13103 OF 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of December, 2006.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has come to this Court with this Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the
criminal prosecution initiated against him before the 38th
Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai. The 1st
respondent is the complainant. The allegations raised is that the
petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120
B and 420 I.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised an
objection that this Court lacks jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings pending before the Magistrate Court at Mumbai in
the light of the decision in Musaraf Hossain Khan v.
Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. [2006 (2) KLT 525 (SC)]. He
particularly relies on the following passage in para.28, which
clearly lays down that ordinarily only such High Court, within
whose jurisdiction the subordinate court which passed the order
is situated, alone would have jurisdiction to entertain the
application.
W.P.C.NO.13103 OF 2006 2
“We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction
under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution only to
highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily
interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a
competent court of law except in a proper case.
Furthermore only such High Court within whose
jurisdiction the order of subordinate court has been
passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an
application under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
unless it is established that the earlier cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction thereof.”
3. I find no circumstances available in this case, which
would justify this Court invoking the powers under Article
226/227 of the Constitution or Section 482 Cr.P.C to interfere
with the order passed by the Magistrate at Mumbai to take
cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner.
The mere facts that the alleged goods were supplied within the
jurisdiction of this Court or that the amount allegedly due was
demanded within this State are not sufficient to justify the
invocation of the powers under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution by this Court in respect of the cognizance taken by
the court at Mumbai.
4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed.
R.BASANT
JUDGE
rtr/