ORDER
1. The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the impugned order at Annexure-A dated 25-7-1998. That is an order issued by the 2nd respondent to Deputy Manager-Credits, I.C.I.C.I. Banking Corporation, Chennai, directing him to produce the documents mentioned therein for the purpose of investigation on a complaint filed with the police alleging that the Directors of the company have forged the signature of Chairman of the company on a letter dated 2-6-1998.
2. The petitioner contends that the impugned order passed under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. is without jurisdiction; that the provisions of Cr. P.C. have no application to the State of Jammu and Kashmir where the cause has arisen; that the petitioner is directly affected by the impugned order as its Bankers will mechanically comply with the demand made therein and that the 2nd respondent-police officer has misused his power. Various other aspects are traversed in the writ petition, with which we are not concerned. The short point for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in this writ petition?.
3. Admittedly, the cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Foods Limited v Special Judicial Magistrate, wherein it is held that the High Court can entertain writ petition involving criminal case in exercise of the power either under Article 227 of the Constitution or under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Reliance was also placed on other decisions too in support of the contention that this Court can entertain the writ petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent sought to justify the impugned order contending that writ petition is not maintainable as no cause of action or part of cause of action has arisen within the State of Karnataka in the present case.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court proceeds to examine the rival contentions. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not stated in the writ petition how the cause of action arose in Karnataka in order to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. In the decision in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v Utpal Kumar Basu, the Supreme Court has held that since there was either no cause of action or part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court, the petition was not maintainable. In view of the law laid down as above, this writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
6. One of the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent is that the writ petition was not filed by a competent person and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. This technical contention goes to the root of the matter. Admittedly the petitioner-company is registered under the Companies Act. It has to be represented by its Secretary. If any suit or proceedings are to be instituted or filed by the company, the papers have to be signed either by the Secretary or the Managing Director or any other Director authorised in that behalf. No material is placed in the instant case to show that the power of attorney executed in favour of the person who has signed this writ petition and the vakalath was authorised under the Memorandum of Association of the company by the Board of Directors to represent the petitioner-company. On this ground also it has to be held that the petition is not filed by the authorised person.
7. A reading of the impugned order at Annexure-A makes it crystal clear that the documents have been sought for the purpose of investigation. It is well-settled that no interference should be made at the stage of investigation of a matter. Any such interference at this stage would bring the investigation to a standstill. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by the final decision taken in the matter after completion of the investigation, it can resort to the remedy available to it under law.
8. One of the main ground on which the impugned order is sought to be quashed is that the same is issued under Section 91 of the Cr. P.C. and the provisions of Cr. P.C. are not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. It is no doubt true that the provisions of Cr. P.C. are not applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir but it has got its own Cr. P.C. Even otherwise, the impugned order is issued to the Deputy Manager of I.C.I.C.I. Banking Corporation at Chennai. It cannot be said that the provisions of Cr. P.C. are not applicable to Chennai. Such being the position, the ground of attack is misconceived. In the impugned order even if the provision under which it is issued is not mentioned, a police officer or a recognised investigating agency has got every power and authority to summon necessary documents and record statements of relevant witnesses and panchas in the course of investigation of a case. The challenge made on technical point will not be helpful to the petitioner.
9. The petitioner has no right to challenge an order issued in favour of a third party. The order do not pertain to the petitioner directly. The impugned order is issued only to ascertain the truth on the basis of the alleged forgery of signature and whether any fraud has been committed misusing such forged signatures. Neither the petitioner-company nor this Court shall come in the way of investigation of such a serious issue. The investigating agency should be allowed to conduct a free and fair investigation into the matter and to prosecute such persons before the Competent Court in accordance with law. The investigating track and power shall not be either diverted or curtailed by this Court in interfer-
ing at this stage. Writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. The various decisions pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the petitioner have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. On the other hand, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v W.N. Chadha, it is not a fit case for interference at the stage of investigation itself.
10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed.