C B I ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH MUMBAI Vs. NARAYAN DIWAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Gauhati High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition filed by the respondent. Another question which also arises is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in quashing the First Information Reports lodged against the respondent.

(3.) AN objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition against the maintainability of the case. A single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and that the case is a fit one for quashing of the First Information Reports. On the question of jurisdiction, the learned single Judge held that the communication of the wireless message to the respondent at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh was a part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition filed in the Gauhati High Court was maintainable under Article 226(2) of the Constitution. On merits of the case, the learned single Judge relied on the averments, in the writ petition. As noted earlier, the writ petition was allowed. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Division Bench was dismissed at the motion stage. Therefore, the present appeal by the C.B.I.