- (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. " The impugned order dated 09-0/-2001 summoning the petitioner as an accused in the criminal complaint filed by the first respondent was passed , by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Muzaffarnagar, U. P. The Apex Court, in the case of Musaraf Hossain Khan Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. and others re ported in 2006 AIR SCW 1137 while considering the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts in entertaining peti tions seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, observed in para 29: "29. We have referred to the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution only to highlight that the High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with an order taking cognizance passed by a competent court of law except in a proper case. Furthermore only such High Court within whose juris diction the order of subordinate court has been passed, would have the jurisdiction to entertain an appli cation under Article 227 of the Con stitution of India unless it is estab lished that the earlier cause of action arose within the jurisdiction thereof. "
(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. Without going into the merits of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the crimi nal court at Muzaffarnagar to entertain the complaint filed by first respondent against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that in view of the above-quoted para 29 of Musaraf Hossain Khan's case, the High Court of Uttaranchal has no jurisdiction to enter tain the petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. PC. against the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Muzaffarnagar, U. P.;