Azizabi vs St. Mother Oil Mills

Kuranga, J.—The question raised in these two Petitions are similar. Hence, these two Petitions are disposed of by this Common Order.

The petitioners have in these Petitions prayed for quashing of the complaints filed by the first-respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the file of the Judicial I-Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi in C.C.No. 826/1995 and 827/95 and all further proceedings pursuant to the said complaints in so far as they relate to the petitioners who are Accused Nos. 3 and 4 respectively in the said cases.

The office has raised an objection as to how these Criminal Petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C., are maintainable, seeking relief of quashing of the complaints and further proceedings in the aforementioned Cases on the file of the Judicial-Magistrate Court-II, Kochi, which is situate in Kerala State and does not come within the jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court.

These two Petitions are posted for orders on the office objection.

Sri Sampath Anand Shetty and Sri Basavaprabhu Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the words used, namely, ''to prevent abuse of the process of any Court'', in Section 482 Cr.P.C., show that this Court has got power to quash the proceedings pending on the file of any Court anywhere in India, not necessarily the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Karnataka.

The Question for Consideration is whether the High Court of a particular State can quash the complaints or Criminal Proceedings pending on the file of the Criminal Court situate within the territorial and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of another State?

The word, ''Court'' has not been defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Dictionary meaning of the ''Court'' is a Hall, Chamber or a place where Justice is administered.

The definition of the High Court, according to Section 2(e) of the Cr.P.C., is in relation to any State, the High Court for that State. This shows that the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court is restricted to the territory of a particular State.

Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves the inherent power of the High Court, i.e., the High Court of that particular State. It does not confer any new power on the High Court, but merely recognizes and preserves the inherent powers previously possessed by it. Therefore, the words, ''any Court'' used in Section 482 Cr.P.C., must be understood to mean a Criminal Court situate within the territorial and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of a particular State.

The High Court''s existing inherent powers which are preserved by Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot extend to proceedings of the Courts outside its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court of one State, in my opinion, therefore, cannot acting u/s 482 Cr.P.C., quash the complaints or proceedings pending on the file of a Court situate outside its territorial jurisdiction.

The Petitions, therefore, are liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and accordingly they are dismissed.

V