- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This is a review application. According to us, this review application has been filed with insufficient Court fees. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. It further appears that the writ petition is filed with the incorrect name of Hon'ble Judges passed the original order dated 20th April, 2006 for which also the application is liable to be dismissed in limine. In spite of the aforesaid conduct the Court did not ignore the contents of the petitioner in support of the review application, but allowed to make submission on the point so that instead of deciding the matter in peace meal manner, could be decided on all the points.
(2.) THE original writ petition was filed praying inter alia as follows : (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the police of police station Loni, District-Ghaziabad, to investigate the Case Crime No. 690 of 2001 under Section 307, I. P. C. Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad and also the case of Crime No. 2001, Police Station Gokulpuri, District Uttar Purvi Delhi under Sections 364, 302, 201, I. P. C. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the police of Police Station Gokulpuri, District Uttar Purvi Delhi, not to investigate the Case Crime No. 334 of 2001 Police Station Gokulpuri, District Uttar Purvi Delhi under Sections 364, 302, 34, I. P. C. (III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 334 of 2001 under Sections 364, 302, 201, I. P. C. Police Station Gokulpuri, Delhi, to other independent agency like C. B. C. I. D. (IV) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (V) Award the costs. Earlier in disposing the writ petition, the parties were heard at length and the following order was passed : "it appears that the petitioner has made a prayer directing the police authority of District Ghaziabad to investigate the matter and further directing Police Station Gokulpuri, District Uttar Purvi Delhi not to investigate the Case Crime No. 334 of 2001 under Sections 364, 302, 34, I. P. C. These issues are not very much germane for due consideration since the petitioner himself made a prayer for transferring the investigation to an independent agency like C. B. C. I. D. by deleting the name of C. B. I. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 contended that in his copy he is asking transfer of the investigation of the matter to C. B. I. We have checked up the copy and found that the statement of the learned Counsel is absolutely correct. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent also contended that one of the relative of the complainant has already filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for the purpose of transferring the investigation to C. B. I. It has also contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the concerned Bench of the Delhi High Court called for the record of the previous case being numbered as Writ Petition No. 205 of 2002 wherein the petitioner hereunder had made an impleadment application and suppressing the fact that the writ petition has been filed herein. Under such circumstances we do not find any reason to keep the writ petition pending unnecessarily. It will lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. There is no occasion to continue that the order of stay which has been granted earlier as an interim order by a Bench of this Court. Hence the writ petition stands dismissed in view of the above observation. Interim order stands vacated. No order is passed as to costs. " The contents of the review application on the part of petitioner on merit that the whole controversy of the writ petition pertains to point of territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad within the State of Uttar Pradesh and not under the Police Station Gokulpuri District Uttar Purvi within the State of Delhi. According to the petitioner that the Investigating Officer of Police Station Gokulpuri District Uttar Purvi Delhi overstepped his jurisdiction to carry out the investigation pertaining to the Case Crime No. 334 of 2001 under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code when the murder of the deceased was allegedly committed in village Jawli, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. According to the petitioner no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Gokulpuri, District Uttar Purvi, Delhi.
(3.) ULTIMATELY it was submitted that there was no question of any deliberate suppression of fact by the petitioner in the writ petition. Moreover, the writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court prior to Criminal Writ Petition No. 205 of 2002, Virender Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. , filed in the Delhi High Court. In support of the contention of the petitioner the learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001 (1) JIC 93 (SC) : (2000) 7 SCC 640, Navin Chandran N. Majithia V. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , to establish that the mere fact of lodging FIR in a particular State cannot be the sole criteria to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another State. The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction. It depends upon the facts in each case. Factually therein the major portion of cause of action arose at Bombay but FIR was registered at Shillong. It was also held that the place of residence cannot be the criteria for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction. Factually therein a false complaint against the petitioner was filed at Shillong in the State of Meghalaya. The Court held that so far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to criminal case is concerned the main fact is to be considered at the place where the alleged offence was committed.;