Hon'ble Vikas Kunvar Srivastav,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayers, which are quoted below for ready reference:-
"i) to quash the FIR dated 5.2.1998 registered in P.S. Civil Lines at Jabalpur (M.P.) as crime no. 47/98 titled Ritcha Kumar vs. Mukul Kumar, Smt. Suman Srivastava and Jitendra Prakash and also be pleased to quash the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of said FIR dated 5.2.1998 and pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur by issuing an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari.
ii) to issue any other order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, or prohibition as is considered fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iii) allow the petition with costs."
The prayer is to quash the first information report dated 05.02.1998 registered with P.S.- Civil Lines, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh as crime case no. 47 of 1998 titled as Ritcha Kumar vs. Mukul Kumar and Ors. It is also to quash the proceedings initiated before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has given background of the case to show that after the matrimonial dispute between the parties, matter was finally settled before Hon'ble Apex Court. It was on certain conditions. It settled all the litigation between the parties. After the aforesaid, an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was allowed. A mutual divorce had taken place. The respondents still registered a criminal case in defiance of the order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court. The case is pending with a court at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh bearing crime case no. 47 of 1998. Since the cause of action arose at Lucknow thus the writ petition was filed and has been admitted by this Court. A detailed interim order was also passed on 18.04.2001. Reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2000 SC 2966] has been given. In the said case, the first information report was registered at Shillong. It was interferred by Bombay High Court. The interference therein was maintained by Hon'ble Apex Court.
The factual matrix of the present case is similar, thus this Court entertained the writ petition. The prayer is to quash the proceedings arising out of the crime case no. 47 of 1998.
We have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The first question for our consideration is as to whether the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted by this Court not having territorial jurisdiction over the Courts at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the crime case, the proceedings are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jabalpur.
We are of the opinion that in a crime case pending in a court at Jabalpur, the Allahabad High Court has no territorial jurisdiction so as to cause interference therein. The judgment in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) was considered by Hon'ble Apex Court subsequently in many cases. The judgment aforesaid was taken to be in the peculiar facts of that case and has not been universally applied. The reference of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Ramchandra Kavalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. [(2009) 11 SCC 286] is relevant apart from the other judgments. In subsequent judgments, Hon'ble Apex Court has considered its earlier judgment in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) and found it to be in the peculiar facts of that.
In view of above, the judgment in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) would not govern the issue relied by this Court while passing the interim order. In fact, subsequent judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court were not cited before the Court, which passed the interim order. The case in hand is for quashing the crime case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jabalpur. The prayer has been made to quash the crime case. In the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia (supra) the matter was not pending before the court at Shillong rather it was only for quashing of the first information report and therefore in a peculiar circumstance, interference was caused.
In a case, where the matter is pending before the subordinate court of a different High Court, this Court cannot cause interference in the proceedings for want of territorial jurisdiction. Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India does not give jurisdiction to the High Court to exercise it beyond the territories defined for it. It has to be within the territorial jurisdiction and while doing so also, it cannot cause interference in the court proceedings pending before the subordinate court under different High Court based on alleged cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this case, proceedings are pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur. It is not a writ petition to challenge an order of the Government or an order which may give part cause of action to entertain the petition.
In the light of these facts, we do not find that the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court. It is for want of territorial jurisdiction over the court proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur.
It is informed that the petitioner had even preferred criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before High Court at Jabalpur which was later on withdrawn and accordingly dismissed. It could not be clarified as to why the petitioner had taken two simultaneous remedies and if the challenge to the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate was made by maintaining a criminal petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., why it was withdrawn.
Taking the case in totality, we do not find writ to be maintainable. If at all there was a settlement between the parties before Hon'ble Apex Court and pursuant to it, if no criminal proceeding could have been initiated by the respondents, the petitioner could have challenged it before the court having territorial jurisdiction and not before the Allahabad High Court only for the reason that marriage took place at Lucknow or even the parties were residing here.
In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. So far petition on behalf of petitioner nos. 2 & 3 is concerned, it is dismissed as abated, as they are no more.
The dismissal of the writ petition would not however preclude the petitioner to take remedy before the court having territorial jurisdiction.
This order would not come in the way for the aforesaid.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Nitesh