Case: Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. M/S. Hanuman Prasad Ojha &amp; Ors

decision of this Court in Navinchandra N. Majithia v State of Maharashtra and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 640] , wherein this Court held, while considering a contention that the High Court of Bombay was not correct in not entertaining the application for quashing of a complaint petition filed by the complainant in Shillong, went into the merit of the matter and instead of remitting the matter back to the High Court directed: 29. Considering the peculiar fact-situation of the case we are of the view that setting aside the impugned judgment and remitting the case to the High Court for fresh disposal will cause further delay in investigation of the matter and may create other complications. Instead, it will be apt and proper to direct that further investigation relating to complaint filed by J.B. Holdings Ltd. should be made by the Mumbai Police. 30. This Court arrived at the finding that the High Court should have issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to the Mumbai Police taking note of the averments made in the writ petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was malafide. 31. No such explicit prayer was made by the respondents in their writ petition, although a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of West Bengal to transfer Case No. 381 to the State of U.P., had been made. The question of State of West Bengals having a legal duty in that behalf did not arise. Only in the event an Investigating Officer, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 154, 162, 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding that the alleged crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could forward the First Information Report to the Police having jurisdiction in the matter. 32. Stricto sensu therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a direction. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief, in our opinion, it was not a case where on the face of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the same could be said to be malafide. A major part of the cause of action might have arisen in the State of U.P., but the same by itself would not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever. 33. We may notice that this Court in Mosaraf Hossain Khan v Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and Others [(2006) 3 SCC 658] , distinguished Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra), in the following terms:- 33. In this case, the averment made in the writ petition filed by the respondent herein even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety would not confer any jurisdiction upon the Kerala High Court. The agreement was entered into within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. The project for which the supply of stone chips and transportation was being carried out was also within the State of West Bengal. Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the said Court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made. 34. The appellant did not deny or dispute any of the averments made in the complaint petition. In the writ petition it merely wanted some time to make the payment. It is now well known that the object of the provision of Section 138 of the Act is that for proper and smooth functioning of business transaction in particular, use of cheques as negotiable instruments would primarily depend upon the integrity and honesty of the parties. It was noticed that cheques used to be issued as a device inter alia for defrauding the creditors and stalling the payments. It was also noticed in a number of decisions of this Court that dishonour of a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the business transactions within and outside the country suffers a serious setback. It was also found that the remedy available in a civil court is a long-drawn process and an unscrupulous drawer normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of the payee. [See Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v Chico Ursula DSouza and Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v State of Gujarat. 36. For the purpose of providing the aforementioned ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the complainant appellant was required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefore none of which arose within the jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court. It is apt to mention that in Prem Chand Vijay Kumar this Court held that cause of action within the meaning of Section 142(b) of the Act can arise only once. 34. It was furthermore held that ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court except in appropriate cases. 35. However, the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has been complied with, as would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. It was necessary, with a view to arrive at the bottom of the matter to conduct investigation into the allegations contained in the complaint petition by a competent investigating officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Some offences at various places situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh had been committed. The High Court had not issued any direction as to which Investigating Officer attached to which Police Station of Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction in the matter. 36. The direction of the High Court, in that way is vague and indefinite. Investigating Officer attached to one Police Station may feel handicapped in carrying out the investigation within the entire State. In this case, it may be necessary for the Investigating Officer to make investigation even in other States including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal etc. for the aforementioned purpose.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]17. Appellant herein did not file any complaint petition within the meaning of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It filed an application in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 156 thereof21. The provisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that even if a part of cause of action has arisen, the police station concerned situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the jurisdiction to make investigation22. The necessary ingredients for proving a criminal offence must exist in a complaint petition. Such ingredients of offence must be referable to the places where the cause of action in regard to commission of offence has arisen. A cause of action as understood in its ordinary parlance may be relevant for exercise of jurisdiction under Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable for the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The application filed by the appellant under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure disclosed commission of a large number of offences. The fact that major part of the offences took place outside the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta is not in dispute. But, even if a part of the offence committed by the respondents related to the appellant-Company was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the High Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter24. If there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation by some of the respondents at Calcutta and a conspiracy was hatched to commit offences of cheating or misappropriation, indisputably a part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate25. The complainant has alleged that the respondents have committed offences under Section 120B, 420, 406, 465, 468, 471, 478 and 481 of the Indian Penal Code26. Although referred to in the complaint petition, but as no investigation was sought to be prayed for in respect of the assault on Subodh Singh at Kanpur Railway Station, it may not be necessary for us to address thereupon27. Respondents were appointed as their agents by the appellants. There, thus, existed a relationship of principal and agent.What were the terms and conditions of the contract of agency and how criminal misconducts have been committed while purporting to perform their part of the terms of the said contract of agency, would be a matter of detailed investigation28. Fraudulent representation being one of the essential ingredients in respect of commission of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, a place where such fraudulent misrepresentation has been made would, thus, give rise to a cause of action for prosecuting the accused. Similarly, having regard to the ingredients of an offence under Section 406 where the entrustments were made as also the situs where the offence was completed in the sense that the amount entrusted had not been accounted for by the agent to the principal will also have a nexus so as to enable to the Court concerned to exercise its jurisdiction of taking cognizance. Furthermore, whether the offence forgery of some documents committed or some other criminal misconducts are said to have been committed in furtherance of the commission of the principal offence of cheating and misappropriation wherefor the respondents are said to have entered into a criminal conspiracy; are required to be investigated. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, thus, had jurisdiction in the matter in terms of Section 178 read with Section 181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure30. This Court arrived at the finding that the High Court should have issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation to the Mumbai Police taking note of the averments made in the writ petition that the complaint petition filed at Shillong was malafide31. No such explicit prayer was made by the respondents in their writ petition, although a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of West Bengal to transfer Case No. 381 to the State of U.P., had been made. The question of State of West Bengals having a legal duty in that behalf did not arise. Only in the event an Investigating Officer, having regard to the provisions contained in Section 154, 162, 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding that the alleged crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could forward the First Information Report to the Police having jurisdiction in the matter32. Stricto sensu therefore, the High Court should not have issued such a direction. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief, in our opinion, it was not a case where on the face of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the same could be said to be malafide. A major part of the cause of action might have arisen in the State of U.P., but the same by itself would not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever35. However, the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has been complied with, as would appear from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal. It was necessary, with a view to arrive at the bottom of the matter to conduct investigation into the allegations contained in the complaint petition by a competent investigating officer of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Some offences at various places situated within the State of Uttar Pradesh had been committed. The High Court had not issued any direction as to which Investigating Officer attached to which Police Station of Uttar Pradesh will have jurisdiction in the matter36. The direction of the High Court, in that way is vague and indefinite. Investigating Officer attached to one Police Station may feel handicapped in carrying out the investigation within the entire State. In this case, it may be necessary for the Investigating Officer to make investigation even in other States including Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal etc. for the aforementioned purpose.