Pitamber Singh Langeh vs Ravinder

Janak Raj Kotwal, J.—Petitioner invokes writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103

of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir to issue a writ, order or direction for quashing a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act filed

against him by respondent before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Meham in District, Rohtak.

Given that the complaint has been filed and is pending in a Court in the State of Haryana, the question of jurisdiction is taken up first.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sangra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Sangra, would say that the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court and that writ jurisdiction of a High Court can be invoked if

cause of action in the whole or partially arises within the local limit of the jurisdiction of that Court. In this backdrop, Mr. Sangra would say further

that since bailable warrant of arrest issued by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Meham has been served upon the petitioner at Jammu so this

Court has the jurisdiction to hear the writ petition. In support, Mr. Sangra, relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India

(UOI) and Another Vs. Narinder Singh Mehta (Brigadier), .

It needs to be noticed that the petitioner seeks quashing of a complaint filed against him and pending before a Judicial Magistrate mainly on the

ground that the allegations against him are fabricated, manipulated, illegal and against the provisions of law. Power to quash criminal proceedings

before a subordinate criminal Court is specially conferred on this High Court u/s 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State (for short

the State Code). Similar power is conferred on other High Courts of the Country u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Central

Code). The relief sought by the petitioner in this case is to quash criminal proceedings in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with section 103 of the State Constitution. The nature of a petition, however, is governed mainly by the relief claimed

and not by the name or nomenclature of the petition given by the petitioner. This in effect is a petition u/s 561A of the State Code and cannot be

said to be or treated as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 103 of the State Constitution.

The term any Court used in section 482 of the Central Code (section 561A of the State Code) refers to a Court subordinate to the High Court

exercising the jurisdiction. u/s 561A of the State Code this High Court can exercise power of quashing criminal proceedings, like a complaint, only

if the same is pending before a Court subordinate to this Court and not before a Court beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. Situation would not

change even if petitioner names the petition as Writ petition and not a petition u/s 561A of the State Code.

Viewed, thus, this writ petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction alongwith connected CMA(s).