RAJIV MODI versus SANJAY JAIN & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 14-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 11 S.C.R. 34 
A 
RAJIV MODI 
't-
v. 
SANJAY JAIN & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1214 of 2009) 
B 
JULY 14, 2009 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND H.L. · DATTU, JJ.] 
',.c 
f-
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Complaint· 
uls. 200 Cr.P.C. -Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the 
c offence - Petition u/s. 482 - High Court quashing the 
complaint on the ground that no cause of action arose within 
,, 
territorial jurisdiction of the. Magistrate - On appeal, held: On 
'· ' 
facts, part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction 
of the Magistrate - Cognizance of offence rightly taken - High 
D Court not correct in quashing the complaint by going into 
merits of the case in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. 
>-
Words and Phrases - 'Cause of action' - Meaning of. 
E 
High Court, by impugned judgment in exercise of its 
power uls. 482 Cr.P .C. had quashed the private complaint 
filed uls. 200 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Judicial 
Magistrate did not have the territorial jurisdiction to take 
cognizance of the offence alleged uls. 406, 420 and 120-
B IPC as no cause of action arose. 
)*· 
F 
The questions for consideration before this court 
were whether High Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 
482 Cr.P.C. was justified in quashing the complaint; and 
whether a court can take cognizance of an offence after 
G examining the complaint, wherein, prima facie whole or a 
part of cause of action seems to have arisen. 
} , 
~ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
t-
HELD: 1. To constitute the territorial jurisdiction, the 
H 
34 
RAJIV MODI v. SANJAY JAIN & ORS. 
35 
whole or a part.of 'cause of action' must have arisen within A 
the territorial jurisdiction of the court and the same must 
be decided on the basis of the averments made in the 
complaint without embarking upon an enquiry as to the 
correctness or otherwise of the said facts. [Para 22] [44-
8-C] 
B 
State of Bombay vs. Narottandas Jethabhai 1951 SCR 
51; State ofMadras v. V.P. Agencies AIR 1960 SC 1309; 
Gurdit Singh v. Munsha Singh (1977) 1 SCC 791; State of 
Rajasthan v .. Swaika Properties (1985) 3 SCC 217; ONGC v. 
Utpal Kumar Basu (1994) 4-scc ·711; Blo9!!1_ Dekor Ltd. v. 
C 
Subhash Himatlal Desai (1994) 6 SCC 322; Rajasthan High 
Court Advocates' Assn. v. Union of lndia(2001) 2 SCC 294; 
Y. Abraham Ajith v. Inspector of Police (2004) 8 SCC 100 
and Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 
335, referred to. 
D 
Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.), referred to. 
2. The Court on the basis of the averments made in 
the complaint, if it is prima facie of the opinion that the 
E 
whole or a part of cause of action has arisen in its 
jurisdiction, it can certainly take cognizance of the 
complaint. There is no need to ascertain that the 
allegations made are true in fact. [Para 29] (46.,E-F] 
Union of India v. Adani Exports Ltd. 2002 (1) SCC 567; 
F 
SatvinderKaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 
728; V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI 1980 Supp SCC 92; 
Liverpool and London S.P.& I Assn. Ltd. v. M. V. Sea 
Success I (2004) 9 SCC 512 and Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh 
Haran Nath Singh 1962 Supp (2) SCR 675, 
referred
0 to. 
G 
3. The appointment of the appellant's company as 
C&F Agent of the respondent's company was agreed 
upon in Patna and the Letter of Appointment was also 
delivered at the address of the in-laws house of the H 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORfS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
\,~,,«;·. 
A appellant in Patna and therefore, it 'can be said that part 
lo-
of cause of action prima facie appears to have arisen in 
Patna. Therefore, Judicial Magistrate, Patna was justified 
in taking cognizance of the complaint and issuing 
process to the respondents. The High Court has erred 
8 . by going into merits ~f J_he case_.and deciding doubtful 
--
-or·comp1icateclquestions of law and fact while invoking 
its powers u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. This is not the fit case where 
the High Court could have exercised its inherent powers 
~ 
u/s. 482 Cr. P. C. [Paras 31 a_nd 32] [46-G-H; 47-A-B] 
c 
--
State gf tf.P. v. Pirthi·ChanCJ(i 996) 2 SCC 37, relied 
--
-on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1951 SCR 51 
Referred to. 
Para 12 
D 
AIR 1960 SC 1309 
Referred to. 
Para 13 
(1977) 1 sec 191 
Referred to. 
Para 14 
(1985) 3 sec 211 
R~ferred to. 
Para 15 
E 
(1994) 4 sec 111 
Referred to. 
Para 16 
"""'"" 
(1994) s sec 322 
Referred to. 
Para 17 
~
-~- (2001) 2 sec 294 
Referred to. 
Para 18 
lit· 
F 
(2004) 8 sec 1 oo 
Referred to. 
Para 19 
(2001)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.