ASIT BHATTACHARJEE versus M/S. HANUMAN PRASAD OJHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

i 
AS!T BHA TI ACHARJEE 
A 
v. 
MIS. HANUMAN PRASAD OJHA AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss. 156(3), 177, 181and181 (4)-
Jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials-Complaint alleging 
criminal offences-Application u!s. 156(3) before Metropolitan Magistrate, C 
Ca/cul/a-Jurisdiction of. when major part of offences took place outside 
Sate of West Bengal and principally in State of U.P.-Direction by Allahabad 
High Court to transfer investigation to U.P. Police Station-Held: With regard 
to offence alleged part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of 
CMM, Calcutta, as such had jurisdiction in terms of s. 178 rlw s. 181(4)- D 
Also no explicit prayer in the writ petition that the complaint filed at West 
Bengal was malafide-Thus, Interference by High Court of Allahabad was 
not called for-Direction of High Court regarding investigation by IO of U.P. 
Police Station vague and indefinite-Thus, directed that the investigation to 
be carried out by C.B.C.J.D. of U.P. which would be forwarded lo CMM, 
Calcutta to determine his jurisdiction-Penal Code, 1860-ss.120B, 420, E 
406, 465, 468 and 478. 
Corporation of Chennai and Kolkata as also West Bengal Corporation 
awarded contracts to the appellants for exporting wheat, rice etc. upon 
purchasing the same from Food Corporation of India as also from open market F 
Appellant appointed respondents as its agents to arrange and supply 
foodgrains and send the same to different destinations in West Bengal on 
commission basis. Respondents used to make arrangements of rail rakes at 
different railway stations in U.P., Rajasthan, Uttranchal, M.P. and Haryana 
for export of foodgrains. It is alleged that in course of rendition of such 
services, respondents in collusion and connivance with each other committed G 
various acts of breach of trust, cheating, forgery, misappropriation, criminal 
misconduct and criminal conspiracy. It assaulted and criminally intimidated 
one of their employees. Appellant filed an application under section 156(3) of 
Cr.P.C. before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata. FIR was registered 
939 
II 
940 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A u/ss. 1208, 420, 406, 465, 468, 478 IPC at police station, Kolkata. The said 
purported acts were committed outside the State of West Bengal and 
principally in the State ofUttar Pradesh. The Officer-in-Charge of the Police 
Station, Kolkata was directed to make investigation into the allegations. 
Investigations were carried out. Warrants of arrest were issued against 
B respondents for non-appearance. Respondents filed a criminal writ petition 
before Allahabad High Court for quashing the case u/ss. 1208, 420, 406, 
465, 468, 471 IPC at P.S. Kolkata; for direction not to arrest on the basis of 
the FIR; and for direction to transfer the case to State of U.P. Division Bench 
of the High Court partly allowed the writ petition. It refused to quash the First 
Information Report but directed the case to be transferred to the appropriate 
C police station of Uttar Pradesh where 1.0. would make an investigation and 
the petitioners would not be arrested till the submission of charge sheet. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal with directions, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. 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 but its definition stricto sensu may not be applicable for 
E the purpose of bringing home a charge of criminal offence. The application 
filed by the appellant u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 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 
dfapute. But, even if a part of the offence committed by the respondents related 
p to the appellant was committed within the jurisdiction of the said Court, the 
High Court of Allahabad should not have interfered in the matter. 
[Para 22] [949-F-H) 
1.2. If there had been a fraudulent misrepresentation by some of the 
respondents at Calcutta and a conspiracy was hatched to commit offences of 
G cheating

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.