@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
1. The writ petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the FIR registered in FIR No. I-166/2011 lodged with the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court, Palghar, Maharashtra State and seeks to quash the same and also to direct the first respondent State of Tamil Nadu to monitor its subordinates while accompanying the police officials for getting transit warrant before the concerned Magistrates against any illegal detention. Heard the argument of Mr. Ashok Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is seen from the records that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner by one Uday K. Patil, a resident of Andheri (East), Mumbai regarding various fraudulent transactions that the petitioner had with the said complainant. An English translation of the Marati FIR was also provided to the petitioner. When asked as to how this court has got territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case registered in Maharashtra and pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Palghar and the writ petition is maintainable, the counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in
2. On the contrary, in respect of criminal offences, the jurisdiction of an High Court is well defined. The Supreme Court vide its judgment in
25. It is no doubt true that in a criminal matter also the High Court may exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction but interference with an order of the Magistrate taking cognizance u/s 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will stand somewhat on a different footing as an order taking cognizance can be the subject-matter of a revisional jurisdiction as well as of an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. A writ of certiorari ordinarily would not be issued by a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution against a judicial officer. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra 9.) However, we are not oblivious of a decision of this Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai 10 wherein this Court upon noticing Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar 9 and also relying on a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 11 opined that a Judicial Court would also be subject to exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The said decision has again been followed in Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash 12. It is, however, not necessary to dilate on the matter any further. The jurisdiction of the High Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was noticed recently by this Court in State of U.P. v. Surendra Kumar 13 holding that even in terms thereof, the Court cannot pass an order beyond the scope of the application thereof. In Surya Dev Rai 10 we may however, notice that this Court categorically stated that the High Court in issuing a writ of certiorari exercises a very limited jurisdiction. It also made a distinction between exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for issuance of a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It categorically laid down that while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court can issue a writ of certiorari only when an error apparent on the face of the record appears as such; the error should be self-evident. Thus, an error according to this Court needs to be established. As regards exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution it was held: (SCC 689, para 24)
The power may be exercised in cases occasioning grave injustice or failure of justice such as when (i) the court or tribunal has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have, (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have, such failure occasioning a failure of justice, and (iii) the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner which tantamounts to overstepping the limits of jurisdiction.
28. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of the subordinate court has been passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution unless it is established that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof.
29. The High Courts, however, must remind themselves about the doctrine of forum non conveniens also. [See Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. v. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express 16.]
(Emphasis added)
3. Significantly in that judgment, even the decision quoted by the author of the Book and relied on by the petitioner i.e. Navinchandra N. Majithia''s case (cited supra) was referred and explained. Therefore, when a competent Court namely the Judicial Magistrate First Class II Court at Palghar in State of Maharashtra is seized of the matter, it is not open to this Court to issue a writ in the nature of prohibition and such a writ petition will not lie.
4. In fact, the other accused had filed an application for bail in the same Magistrate Court and got the same which was also enclosed in the typed set. It is also stated that the petitioner also filed an anticipatory bail application before the court in which the criminal case is pending. It will not be out of place to note that the petitioner company earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 9144 of 2012 regarding a cheque bouncing case filed against them u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and also impleaded various Metropolitan Magistrates at New Delhi, Haryana (Gurgaon) and Mumbai including the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in which C.C. No. 2645/SS/2006 and 765/SS/2006 are pending. That writ petition was dismissed. In that writ petition, the petitioner sought to question the filing of cases u/s 138 of the N.I. Act in various courts outside the Tamil Nadu and contended that just in civil cases, the agreement between the parties to sue the petitioner only in the courts in Tamil Nadu should also be made applicable to the cases under the N.I. Act. This court had dismissed the writ petition by an order dated 10.4.2012 (that case since reported in 2012 (2) TLNJ 498 (Civil)). In the light of the above, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Hence the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.
