- (1.) I respectfully agree with the judgment prepared by my learned brother Mohapatra, J. In view of the importance of the legal issue highlighted before us - regarding the extent of jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - I am tempted to add a few lines of my own for a further support to the conclusion reached by my learned brother.
(2.) As the facts of the case have been succinctly narrated by Mohapatra, J., I shall set out only the main issue involved. Whether the High Court of Bombay has jurisdiction to issue a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of any step taken or to be taken pursuant to the FIR registered by the Shillong police in the State of Meghalaya. The Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants solely on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench has observed thus (1999 Cri LJ 3476 at P. 3478): "Petitioner cannot contend that a part of the cause of action arose within the limits of this Court as Bombay Police sought to interrogate him. The investigation is not the cause of action. The investigation is only the consequence of the FIR filed by the 4th respondent before the Police authorities in Meghalaya. The petitioner challenges in this Writ Petition the said FIR where an investigation is extending to Bombay or any other State on the basis of the FIR filed in a different State. One cannot say that the part of cause of action has arisen wherever police goes for the purpose of investigation."
(3.) The Division Bench extracted the definition of High Court under Section 2(e) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') and stated that by the said definition the Code has clearly laid down that "every High Court has to exercise the jurisdiction under the provisions of the Code only within the territory of the State unless it is extended by any law. The High Court is defined in the Code as the High Court for that State. Learned Judges then made the following observations (1999 Cri LJ 3476 at P. 3479): "Merely for the reason that the High Court can exercise the power under Article 226, also to quash an FIR where no offence is disclosed, cannot be construed to have jurisdiction to be exercised outside the territory where no FIR is lodged. To hold so would be farfetched. The instance that has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is being questioned by Bombay Police is only as a part of investigation. Police of a particular State can very well seek the assistance of police of another State in the course of the investigation of a crime. It is permissible under Sec. 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that any police officer may, for the purpose of arresting without warrant any person whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any place in India. Exercising this power, the Assam Police might have come to Bombay also and sought aid of Bombay Police. Thus that by itself cannot be said that the part of cause of action has arisen in Maharashtra. If that be so, then no investigation by any police in India can be successfully carried out because any absconding accused can go to any corner of India and challenge the prosecution where he was staying. This concept is quite contrary to the scheme envisaged by the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the investigation of an offence.";