RAJCHAND TEA INDUSTRIES Vs. HILLGROW TEA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in all these petitions seek to quash the process issued by the first respondent Judicial Magistrate I Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh State, or to transfer the case to the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coonoor in Tamil Nadu State.

(2.) IN so far as W.P.No.34289 of 2006 is concerned, it is a strange prayer where the petitioners seek to quash the un-numbered process in No.541 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh or to transfer the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(3.) 1. When asked as to how this Court has got jurisdiction to deal with the complaint taken cognizance by a Court in Chhattisgarh State and also the process being issued, Mr.M.Jayaraman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 [Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others] wherein the Supreme Court held that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned, the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed. In that case, the High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition holding that it cannot be entertained in the writ petition since the prayer was to quash the complaint, which was lodged by the complainant at Shillong in the state of Meghalaya. Rejecting the contention, the Supreme Court, in paragraph 17 of the judgment, held as follows: