Vishnukumar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

The petitioner, who is a resident of Indore, is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for not lodging the FIR in respect of the offence which took place with him. His grievance is that he happens to be the Ex-Managing Director of M/s Janak Intermediates Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which had transacted a business with one M/s Mahansar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Company as they had floated a public issue, towards which a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs was to be paid by the M/s Mahansar Engineering Pvt. Ltd. When the petitioner enquired from the said company about the payment, he was informed that the aforesaid payment has already been made through three cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, Reclamation Branch Mumbai and that the said three cheques had been presented for payment to the Bank of Punjab Ltd. Bandra (West) Branch, Bombay and had thereafter been encashed. When the petitioner enquired from the Bank of Punjab about the current account No.4001528, the bank refused to give any details of the said account. Thus, the petitioner was forced to file W.P.No.9855/2012 (Vishnu Kumar Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others), which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.9.2013 as all the documents were supplied to the petitioner by the Bank in the Court itself. After obtaining the documents, the petitioner filed a police complaint on 11.10.2013 (Annexure P/6) for taking action against the persons, who had opened the aforesaid fraudulent account in the name of the petitioner’s company, however, no action was taken; thus, a complaint was also made to the Superintendent of Police (East Zone), Regal Square, Indore, but as no action was taken, it led the petitioner to file the present petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by the respondent/State in this petition, in which it is stated that the petitioner had submitted complaint before the Police Station M.G Road wherein a Sub Inspector was deputed to make a preliminary enquiry into the matter and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded on 31.10.2013 but no further action was taken.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the fraudulent Bank account had been opened in Mumbai, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action has arisen at Indore, especially when the director also resides in Indore. Counsel has also relied upon section 178 of the CRPC, which provides for the place of inquiry or trial.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and it is submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned police station in Mumbai only.

Heard. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, it is apparent that an offence has been committed against the petitioner and his late father, whose credentials have been used to open a fake bank account in the name of their Company in Mumbai. So far as the provision regarding territorial jurisdiction of a criminal court is concerned, reference may be had to section 178 of the CRPC which reads as under:-

(emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the aforesaid section 178 of Cr.P.C. makes it easier to understand that when an account has been opened in Mumbai in the name of the petitioner's company by using the petitioner's and his father’s credentials. The petitioner also resides in Indore, where as his father died in the year 1994, whereas the account was opened in the year 1997. It is apparent that the actual offence of fraud has taken place at Mumbai, whereas the petitioner has suffered the injury at Indore only as he is a resident of Indore. Thus, it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action has arisen at Indore, and the police ought to have taken swift action after lodging the FIR against the unknown persons.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed, and the respondents are directed to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P/6) & dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure P/7) and proceed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.