- (1.) VINOD Prasad and Ajai Kumar Singh, JJ. Through the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for stay of arrest in relation to case crime No. 292 of 20007, under sections 498a, 406 and 34 IPC, Police Station Sarita Vihar, district Delhi. The ancillary prayer is for transfer of investigation to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2, who is Senior Superintendent of Police Meerut Region, Meerut.
(2.) FROM the perusal of the writ petition it is clear-that FIR of the aforesaid crime was registered as police station Sarita Vihar, Delhi. No prayer of quashing of FIR has been made in the instant writ petition. The only prayer is for stay of arrest. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA in opposition. On the very outset the question regarding maintainability of the petition in this Court cropped up before us. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Om Prakash Srivastava v. Union of India and another1. 2006 (56) ACC 93 (SC) = 2006 (46) AIC 736 (SC ). He contended that in view of the aforesaid judgement writ petition is maintainable as all the incident occurred in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that he has not made any prayer for quashing of the FIR and therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. He further contended that he has prayed for transfer of investigation to District Meerut which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court therefore also the writ petition is maintainable.
(3.) LEARNED AGA on the other hand contended that this writ petition with a blanket prayer for stay of arrest is not maintainable and so far as transfer is concerned the petitioners can seek inter-state transfer by filing a transfer application before the Apex Court. He contended that this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction to transfer the FIR registered at police station Sarita Vihar, Delhi as this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction on the aforesaid police station. We have considered the argument advanced by both the sides. The petitioners are accused in the aforementioned crime number and the cause of action has arisen by registration of FIR. No cause of action arise in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners are aggrieved by registration of FIR and not because of the incident which are mentioned in the FIR. Cause of action has to be understood in the context of such a fact. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the incident had occurred in the state of Uttar Pradesh, therefore writ petition is maintainable before us does not appeal to us as the cause of action in our opinion arose because of registration of FIR in New Delhi. Before that there was no occasion to the petitioners to approach us. In such a view, the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that part of cause of action has arisen in state of Uttar Pradesh is not acceptable and is being repelled.;