NAVINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 82 · Decided: 04-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
NA VINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 226(2)-FIR registered in Shillong in 
respect of agreement to sell shares in Mumbai-Writ Petition for quashing 
C complaint filed in Mumbai-Alternate prayer to transfer investigation to 
Mumbai-Writ Petition dismissed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction-
Part of case of action arising in Mumbai-Held, Writ Petition maintainable-
Jnvestigation to be transferred from Shillong to Maharashtra-Directions 
issued. 
D 
Words and Phrases-Cause of action-Meaning of 
Appellant entered into an agreement for sale of shares with the 
Respondent and received an earnest money. Since the Respondent committed 
default in making the balance payment and thereby committed breach of the 
agreement, the said agreement was terminated and the earnest money stood 
E forfeited as stipulated in the agreement. A complaint was filed by the 
Respondent against the Appellant in a criminal court in Shillong. The 
appellant filed the writ petition in Mumbai against the State of Maharashtra, 
the State of Meghalaya, the Special Superintendent of Police, CID, Shillong 
etc. to quash the complaint lodged by the Respondent company or in the 
F alternative to issue a writ of mandamus directing the State of Meaghalaya to 
transfer the investigation being conducted by the officers of the CID at 
Shillong to the Economic Offences wing, General Branch of the CID, Mumbai 
or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police and to issue a writ of 
prohibition or any other order or direction restraining the Special S.P. Police, 
CID, Shillong and/or and investigating agency of the Meghalaya Police from 
G taking any further step in respect of the complaint lodged by the Respondent 
company with the Police authorities at Shillong. 
.. 
The Appellant contended that the Respondent company had tried to 
pressurise them to reverse the transaction of sale of shares and recover the 
m'lney paid in respect thereof by employing strong arm tactics, which 
H 
~ 
---
-
NA VINCHANDRA N. MAJITHIA v. STA TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
83 
eventually failed; that having failed to achieve the purpose by such mean., it A 
has filed a false complaint against the petitioner at Shillong in the State of 
Meghalaya; that the complaint is false and it has been deliberately filed at 
Shillong with the malajide intention of exerting pressure and causing 
harassment to him so as to get the transaction relating to transfer of share 
reversed; that since the entire transaction upon which the complaint is B 
purortedly based had taken place at Mumbai and not at any other place outside 
Mumbai much less at Shillong or any other place in the State of Meghalaya, 
the complaint could not/ought not to have been entertained by the Police at 
Shillong; and that the jurisdiction, if any, to investigate/inquire into the 
contents of the complaint is with the Police/Courts in Mumbai and the action 
taken by tht Special S.P. Police, CID, Shillong in entertaining the said C 
complaint and in taking up investigation on the basis of the same is clearly 
oppressive, discriminatory and malafide. The Appellant also contended that 
the conduct on the part of the Shillong Police in entertaining the complaint 
against him and in embarking upon investigation was clearly in excess of the 
jurisdiction vested in under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; 
that the Shillong Police had on their own requested the Mumbai Police (Malvani D 
Polk~ Station), to carry out an extensive investigation into the alleged offence 
which clearly indicates that Shillong Police authorities were very much aware 
that the entire transaction upon which the complaint is purportedly based had 
taken place in Mumbai, that, therefore, the subsequent conduct of the Shillong 
Police in continuing with investigation of the case is clearly malafide and E 
without sam;tion of law and procedure and that the allegations made against 
him in the complaint do not make out any cognizable offence and that the 
dispute, if any, is of civil nature. The respondent referred to a writ petition 
filed by them in Gauhati High Court challenging the action of the Government 
of Meghalaya refusing permission to the concerned Police Officers to go to 
Mumbai on the ground of paucity of funds and opposed the writ petition. The 
single Judge of the High Court directed the complainant to deposit 

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