Territorial Jurisdiction” of High Court in case where accused is arrested in a State different from where FIR is lodged

Delhi High Court: Deciding the question of “Territorial Jurisdiction” of High Court in a case where an accused is arrested in a State different from where the FIR is lodged, the Court held that both the High Courts would have jurisdiction under Article 226, but in law, 2 High Courts cannot simultaneously exercise jurisdiction hence the concept of forum conveniens will apply in such cases, making it obligatory for the Court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The Court, stating that “cause of action” under Article 226(2) must be given the meaning as under Section 20(c) of Cr.P.C, said that “cause of action” means a bundle of facts which are required to be proved however taking note of convenience it would include existence of more appropriate forum, the expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for adjudication and other ancillary aspects. The Court also said that mere framing of a statute, statutory rule or executive order or instruction being passed under the jurisdiction of a certain High Court would not confer jurisdiction upon that Court.

In the present case, the complaints against the petitioner were filed at Mumbai, however, he was arrested in Delhi . The Court, taking note of the facts of the case, said that since the Special Court, Mumbai is in seisin of the matter, it would be appropriate that only such High Court, within whose jurisdiction the subordinate court is located before whom the trial proceedings are pending and whose quashing is sought, should entertain writ petitions under Article 226. [Syed Mohd. Masood v. Union of India, W.P. (CRL) 1546 of 2013, decided on 11 November, 2013]

Print Page