C P GEORGE Vs. CONSOLIDATED FOOTWEARS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners has approached this Court seeking "to declare that the cognizance taken on the criminal complaint evidenced by Ext. P4 and the order of summons issued thereon evidenced by Ext. P5 and the steps taken in furtherance thereof are illegal, inoperative and void." The petitioner also seek for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any steps in furtherance of the Criminal Complaint under Crime No. 3892/96 pending before the second respondent. The second respondent is the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, Gujarat State. Ext. P4 is the copy of a criminal complaint filed by the first respondent before the second respondent court and Ext. P5 is the summons issued by the second respondent to the petitioner with regard to the trial of Ext. P4.

(2.) The petitioner submits that the first respondent has not significantly stated anywhere in Ext. P4 complaint that the offence alleged had been committed by the petitioner within the local jurisdiction of the second respondent court. So, the second respondent, in taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the petitioner has violated the mandatory provisions contained in S.177 and S.181(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that the procedure adopted by the second respondent in a complaint for offence not stated to have been committed within his local jurisdiction is neither just nor reasonable and hence, it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India depriving the petitioner's 'personal liberty not in accordance with the procedure established by law, as has been done in this case'. Thus, the petitioner contends that the second respondent has total lack of jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P4 complaint and therefore, there is 'flagrant abuse of the process of the Court.' He submits that summons Ext. P5 was served on the petitioner at Ernakulam and such service is 'an integral part of the cause of action within the meaning of Art.226(2) of the Constitution.' The petitioner contends that the second respondent before entertaining Ext. P4 and issuing Ext. P5 summons, ought to have ascertained whether the cause of action had arisen within his jurisdiction and that the second respondent had responsibility and duty before entertaining a private complaint 'to find whether the concerned accused should be legally proceeded against for the offence charged." It is further contended that the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, if at all there was any, is at Ernakulam and not within the local jurisdiction of the second respondent court. Therefore, the summons issued is in violation of the provisions in S.177 and S.181(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is total abuse of power by the second respondent, the petitioner submits. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the reliefs as aforementioned.

(3.) The petition is under Art.226 and not under Art 227, obviously because the second respondent Magistrate is not within the supervisory control of this Court. The petitioner has approached this Court with a specific contention that service of summons, from the court outside the jurisdiction of this Court, will confer jurisdiction to this Court to entertain a petition under Art.226. The petitioner draws support to this contention from Art.226(2) which reads as follows: