- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. We have passed an order on 25th April, 2006 by holding the following view: "this application appears to be quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 325 of 2005 filed in the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the cause of action arose in the State but not in the State of Gujarat. We are of the view if the aforesaid submission is the appropriate situation in that case the application is to be made before the competent Court of Ahmedabad, Gujarat for quashing of the same or transmission of the FIR. if any and thereafter the steps are to be taken before this Court. We find the application is misconceived in nature. Therefore, the application is dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. No order is passed as to costs. "
(2.) BY filing an application for review without payment of appropriate Court fee the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh at Etawah. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter. The petitioner is suffering from misconception of law. If any order is passed by a Court without jurisdiction, the petitioner has no other alternative but to make an appropriate application either under Section 482 Cr. P. C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whichever is applicable in the High Court of Gujarat, whose sub-ordinate Court committed the mistake according to the petitioner. This Court cannot interfere such order. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court being 2004 (2) JIC 666 (SC) : AIR 2004 SC 4286 (Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.) is concerned it has decided the similar issue on the original order which has been passed by the appropriate Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai which was reached to Madras High Court. It is impossible to imagine that the order which has been passed by the Sub-ordinate Court of Gujarat will be taken care under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner is repeatedly harping the cause of action without understanding the question of maintainability which was categorically mentioned in the order dated 25th April, 2006. The judgment which has been passed by this Court as referred either in 2006 (9) ADJ 233 (Ali) (DB), Dr. Rajedra B. Lal and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , or in 2006 (4) ADJ 265 (All) (DB), Sudeep Soni and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , relating to the merit of the case as regards cause of action partially or fully arose within the jurisdiction or not. Here the question of making appropriate application before appropriate forum for the purpose of raising such question. We cannot assume charge of Gujarat High Court to hear out such application allegedly arose within the jurisdiction beforehand. The petitioner has no other alternative but to make an appropriate application in that High Court. Therefore, the approach of the petitioner is misconceived in nature. Hence, we do not find any justification in passing any affirmative order hereunder. The application for review is dismissed. However, no order is passed as to costs.
(3.) THE petitioner will be entitled to get certified copy of this order subject to deposit of the Court fee within a period of seven days from date. R. N. Misra, J.-I agree. Application rejected. .;