IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1561 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1561 OF 2008. WRIT PETITION NO.1561 OF 2008. Sunil Mehta. ..Petitioner. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.V.K.Pradhan, Senior Counsel with Rajiv Singh, i/b. R. Satyanarayanan, for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Raju, Senior Advocate a/w. Subhash Jha a/w. Chetan Pandya & Yashpal Thakur, for the Respondent No.3. Mr. D.P.Adsule, APP, Respondent-State. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. : A.S. OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. : 21ST AUGUST,2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third Respondent. 2. The third Respondent filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, alleging commission of offence punishable under sections 406, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On the said - 2 - complaint, an order was passed on 7th April 2008 under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 directing that the complaint be sent for investigation to the concerned Police Station. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the F.I.R registered on the basis of the impugned order. The challenge is on the ground that the alleged cause of action pleaded in the complaint had entirely arisen in the State of Gujrat and the Courts in Mumbai had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint. The second contention is that, on plain reading of the complaint, no offence was made out against the petitioner. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the third Respondent-Complainant fairly stated that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. He, therefore, submitted that the third Respondent has no objection if the order passed - 3 - on the complaint is quashed with liberty to the first Respondent to file a fresh complaint before the Appropriate Court. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in any event no case of commission of offence is made out against the Petitioner. 3. In view of the concession by the learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent and in view of averments made in the complaint, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the complaint. Only on this ground, the Petition must succeed and hence, I pass the following order :- (1) The order dated 7th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, is quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by the third Respondent C.C.No.31/M/2008 is hereby dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. As a consequence of this order, the F.I.R bearing - 4 - MECR.No.2/2008 of the Cuffe Parade Police Station at Mumbai, is also quashed. (2) It is made clear that this order will not preclude the third Respondent from filing a fresh complaint before the Appropriate Court. (3) It is made clear that all contentions raised by the Petitioner as well as the third Respondent on merits on the controversy are expressly kept open. [ A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.] A.S.OKA, J.]