New Delhi, Sept 6: In an important ruling, the Supreme Court has held that territorial jurisidiction of a court with regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the incident and not on the basis of where the complaint was filed."So far as the question of territorial jurisdiction with reference to a criminal offence is concerned the main factor to be considered is the place where the alleged offence was committed," a division Bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice D P Mohapatra said.The ruling came in a case of a dispute over the taking over of a company where the purchasers of a company in Mumbai went to Shillong in Meghalaya and filed a case of alleged fraud against N N Majitha from whom they were purchasing it.Even after the Shillong police referred to the Mumbai police about the investigation, the Bombay High Court refused to entertain Majitha's petition for transfer of the case from Shillong to Mumbai saying it did not have the territorial jurisdiction over the case filed in Meghalaya.Justice Thomas said, "We make it clear that the mere fact that the FIR was registered in a particular state is not the sole criterion to decide that no cause of action has arisen even partly within the territorial limits of jurisdiction of another state."Justice Thomas further clarified that "nor are we to be understand that any person can create a fake cause of action or even concoct one by simply jutting into the territorial limits of another state or by making a sojourn or even permanent residence therein."The High Court before which the writ petition is filed must ascertain whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction, he said and added "It depends upon the facts in each case."Quashing the Mumbai High Court order and transferring the case from Shillong to Mumbai, the Bench said the complaint lodged by J B Holdings Ltd against Majitha would be probed by the economic offences wing of the Mumbai police.Justice Mohapatra said the Bombay High Court failed to consider all the relevant facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction."On the averments made in the writ petition, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay High Court," he said.
