GOYAL AGENCIES Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. M/s. Goyal Agencies and his two partners Arun Kumar Goyal and Vinesh Kumar Goyal have invoked our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash complaint No. 84 of 2006 M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. M/s. Goyal Agencies, under sections 415, 417, 418 and 420 IPC, pending in the Court of City Munsif/judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir) vide Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition by issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari. The ancillary prayer is to issue any other writ, order or direction, which deems fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) AT the very outset at the time of admission the question which was mooted for our consideration by the contesting rival sides is as to whether this Court possesses territorial jurisdiction to quash the complaint, filed before City Munsif/judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Srinagar (Jammu and Kashmir ). Because of the above noted legal question we deferred the hearing of the petition on its merits and heard the rival contesting side only on the question of maintainability of the writ petition before us.

(3.) LEARNED AGA contrarily retorted the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and contended that the cause of action in the present case arose because of filing of the complaint before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir who has taken cognizance of the offences. LEARNED AGA contended that it is not the incident which is material for determining the cause of action. He contended that the totality of facts has to be looked into for determining whether a High Court 'has got a territorial jurisdiction or not to entertain a writ petition. He further contended that disputed question of facts cannot be allowed to scuttle a legitimate prosecution engineered by the complainant. According to his submission the complainant must get a chance to substantiate his allegations as to whether any part of the incident or cause of action accrued in State of Jammu and Kashmir or not? In his submission to nip the prosecution into bud at the very threshold of the filing of the complaint will not be an exercise proper for this Court to be undertaken as the judicial restrain demands that complainant should be allowed to establish his case at a proper trial. LEARNED AGA con-cludingly contended that from the averments made in the complaint it is very perceptible that the complaint filed at Jammu and Kashmir is maintainable and there is no malafidy on the part of the complainant to file the complaint there at Srinagar as the averments made therein disclose commission of offence and therefore, this writ petition is bereft of merit and is not maintainable in this Court and the petitioners should be directed to seek remedy before the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.