:1: :1: :1: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2007. WRIT PETITION NO. 2083 OF 2007. 1. Mohammad Shahjahan, Age: 36 years, r/o: Jaganaickpur, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. 2. Mohammad Khan, Age: 36 yrs., r/o: D. No. 59-5-23, Near Water Tank, Jaganaickpur, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. ..Petitioners. Versus. 1. Geo-chem Laboratories (P) Ltd., having office at Geo Chem House, 294, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. 2. State of Maharashtra, At the instance of MRA Marg Police Station, Mumbai. ..Respondents. --- Mr. A.S.Rao for the petitioner. Mr. S.V.Sadavarte, for the respondent no.1. Ms. A.S.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.): 1. Heard. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. The petitioner has approached to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the complaint filed by the :2: :2: :2: respondent bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 20 of 2007 before the Metropolitan Magistrate 38th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai (for short, "the MM 38th Court") and for a direction to quash and set aside the order passed by the MM 38th Court directing investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure through M.R.A. Marg Police Station. 3. Even though several points have been raised on behalf of the petitioner, we find that the petition can be disposed of on only one point of jurisdiction of the MM 38th Court to entertain the complaint as filed by the respondent no.1. 4. The complainant has alleged that the complainant is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and its registered office is at Bombay. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent no.1. Petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are the Manager and Deputy Manager. The petitioner No.1 joined the services of the company in the year 1993 and the petitioner no.2 joined the service of the respondent no.1 company in the year 1990. It appears that in the year 2001-2002 both the petitioners were transferred to Kakinada, which is near to Vishakhapatnam. It is alleged that when the closer scrutiny of the statement of accounts was made by the respondent company it was found that the petitioners have forged and fabricated Board :3: :3: :3: Wage Statements. It is further alleged that the Attendance Registers and the Statements on Iron Ore Vessels contained false entries and entries showing disbursements and expenses were not backed by credible documentary evidence. In the on-going scrutiny, the concerned departments of the Complainant company have detected a fraud of approximately Rs.3,20,000/- with more disclosures coming to light. The Complainant company alleged that these amounts had been siphoned off by the accused persons by creating fictitious entries showing the said disbursements. Therefore, further inquiry was conducted by the Company. Under these circumstances, complaint under sections 403, 409, 467, 469 & 471 read with 120-B and 34 of IPC bearing No. 20 of 2006 was filed before the MM 38th Court, Mumbai. The MM 38th Court, Mumbai has not taken cognizance however the direction under section 156(3) has been given. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that all the transactions mentioned in the complaint and which are under scrutiny by the respondent company have taken place at Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh. It is pointed out that nothing has been mentioned in the complaint that how and in what manner the cause of action has partially taken place at Mumbai Office. It is submitted that therefore the MM 38th Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the MM 38th Court should have refused the complaint. :4: :4: :4: 6. Learned counsel for the respondent very vehemently submitted that the complaint is very much tenable before the MM 38th Court. He submitted that the Head Office of the Company is located at Mumbai and every transaction is routed through the Head Office and therefore Mumbai Court has jurisdiction. He submitted that the inquiry in respect of the fraud and defalcation is going on at Mumbai and therefore Mumbai Court is having jurisdiction. 7. We have perused the complaint. In the complaint nowhere it has been contended and stated that a part of cause of action has taken place in Mumbai. Not only that the complaint makes a vague allegation that the forgery and defalcation of Rs.3.20 lacs has been committed by the petitioners and this forgery is brought to light and further inquiry is being made. It is alleged that the inquiry was initiated and at some point of time petitioners participated in the inquiry and thereafter they are not participating in the inquiry and therefore the complaint has been lodged. Since the offence as alleged has been committed under sections 403, 409, 467, 469, 471 read with 120-B and 34 of IPC at least the complaint should have contained some particulars as to which and in what manner the offence punishable under sections 403 and 409 has been committed, namely, entrustment of amount and misappropriation of the same. :5: :5: :5: Further the particulars of fraud and defalcation should have been given entry-wise and transaction-wise. The particulars should have been given in the complaint as to which entries or transactions have taken place at Mumbai and remaining part of the said transactions have taken place at Kakinada. However, surprisingly the complaint is conspicuously silent about the entries in respect of the forgery and misappropriation. The complaint only contains the vague and bald allegation that the fraud in respect of Rs.3.20 lacs is brought to light, but in what manner and which are those transactions and entries from the books of accounts and documents supporting the same and constituting the offence are conspicuously absent in the complaint. The documents supporting the contention are not produced before the MM 38th Court. In the absence of these documents, we have no other alternative but to hold that the transaction has taken place at Kakinada only. And, if the offence has taken place at Kakinada and no part of transaction has taken place within Mumbai, the Court at Mumbai will have no jurisdiction. 8. When we heard the matter yesterday, we called upon the counsel for the respondent to point out any transaction which has taken place at Mumbai. On going through complaint and material on record he was helpless to point out as to how the Court at Mumbai has jurisdiction. In the circumstances, on going through the :6: :6: :6: record and complaint we find that no transaction has taken place in Mumbai, much more in Maharashtra. Even though there is a good case of defalcation in favour of the respondent - company, the respondent should have filed the said complaint before the Court which is having jurisdiction in the matter. 9. We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Mumbai Court has no jurisdiction in the case. We, therefore, allow this writ petition on a singular ground that the MM 38th Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and further to pass an order to investigate the complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. We therefore quash and set aide the order passed by the MM 38th Court directing the investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. in respect of the above mentioned complaint. We further direct the MM 38th Court to return the Miscellaneous Complaint No. 20 of 2007 to the Petitioner for presenting it to the appropriate forum. The respondents are at liberty to produce it before the appropriate forum. 10. Rule accordingly. (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) /2008/VKT/..