DOUGHLES VUGES Vs. NAVNEET MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJEEV Gupta, C. J. Mr. A. Rab, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U. P. Govt.) for the respond ent No. 3. They are heard.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed this pe tition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India read with Section 482 Cr. PC. for the following reliefs: " (i) Writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the complaint No. 730/9-2000 (Navneet Mittal Doughles Vuges) and sum moning order passed on 09-0/-2001, pending in the court of re spondent No. 2 at Muzaffarnagar (U. P. ). (ii) Writ, order or direction in the na ture of prohibitory mandamus directing and commanding the respondent No. 2 not to try / pro ceed with the complaint case No. 730/9-2000, U/s 406, 420 I. P. C. or in alternative the respondent No. 2 be directed to sent the record to the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun situated in the State of Uttaranchal. (iii) Issue any writ, rule, order or di rection, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award the cost to the peti tioner. "

(3.) THE petitioner's main submission is that the Court at Muzaffarnagar (U. P.) had no jurisdiction to entertain the criminal complaint filed by the first re spondent, as even according to the facts narrated in the criminal complaint, the acts constituting the alleged offence were committed at Mussoorie, District Dehradun, State of Uttaranchal and as such, the criminal court at Muzaffarnagar (U. P.) had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by first respondent against the petitioner.