N R SUNDARESAN Vs. VARUN BEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR No.154 of 2002, dated 23.06.2002 on the file of the second respondent, based on the complaint lodged by the first respondent, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nawan Shahr, Punjab.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as a Manager in the Marketing Office in the first respondent company at Chennai. THE Marketing Office of the first respondent company was functioning at No.19, 5th Street, Krishna Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai - 92. THE first respondent company was engaged in the imports of the consumer goods from the International Market and distributed the same to various places throughout the country. THE goods which were handled by the Chennai Office were imported through the Chennai Port and were stocked in the office functioning at Virugambakkam. THE Director of the first respondent company, Mr.Varun Bedi, used to visit Chennai Office frequently for the purpose of managing the affairs of the business of the company. According to the petitioner, in December 1999, he expressed his unwillingness to continue in the employment of the first respondent company and thereafter the Director of the first respondent company came to Chennai in the last week of January 2000. THEy verified all the accounts of the Company and took details of the remaining stock and thereafter, the Chennai Office was closed on 04.03.2000 and vacant possession of the premises was handed over to the landlord of the building. According to the petitioner, the company was due and payable to him arrears of salary and other adjustments and he had been repeatedly representing to the first respondent for settlement of his dues. THE petitioner was requested to come over to Delhi during December 2000 and the first respondent promised to settle the dues payable to the petitioner. While so, on 22.08.2002, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police from the second respondent Police Station, came to the petitioner's residence stating that warrant has been issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nawan Shahr, Punjab, based on the complaint given by the first respondent. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition and this Court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 07.01.2003, granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the FIR.

(3.) THE other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is as regards the territorial jurisdiction. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 (Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others). THE Honourable Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the decision of the Bombay High Court which summarily dismissed a writ petition for want of jurisdiction. THE prayer in the said writ petition was to quash the complaint lodged by one J.B.Holdings Ltd. or in the alternative to direct the State of Meghalaya to transfer the investigation being conducted by the officers of CID at Shillong to the Economic Offences Wing, General Branch of CID, Mumbai or any other investigating agency of the Mumbai Police. THE Honourable Supreme Court after considering the entire factual materials, held as follows as regards the jurisdiction issue and relating to the interpretation of the expression "cause of action, wholly or in part" and the following paragraphs of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court would be relevant.