The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an alleged police encounter as not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction, holding no cause of action arose within its area despite the petitioner's residence there, granting liberty to file in the appropriate court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9694 of 2020 Petitioner :- Saroj Lata Pandey Respondent :- State of U.P. and 6 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Upendra Upadhyay,Manish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Arunendra Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is preferred seeking reliefs:-
"A). Issue a writ, order or direction to constitute a Special Investigating Team headed by some Hon'ble Retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court to investigate/inquire into the matter of alleged encounter between the husband of the petitioner namely Sri Rakesh Pandey @ Hanuman Pandey son of Bala Dutta Pandey resident of Village - Lilari, Bharauli, P.S. Kopaganj, District Mau, U.P. and a Team of Special Task Force comprising respondent Nos.6 and 7 and other police officials which took place in the night of 08/9.08.2020 in Gudamba Area, Kursi Road, P.S. Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow.
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the State respondents to initiate criminal prosecution against the erring police officials.
C. Issue a writ, order or direction to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.378 of 2020 registered at Police Station Sarojini Agency for conducting a fair and impartial investigation in the matter.
D. Issue a writ, order or direction to provide this adequate security to the family of the petitioner.
E. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
Learned Additional Advocate General has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the ground that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the encounter of her husband, Rakesh Pandey @ Hanuman Pandey by the police team of Special Task Force of U.P. on 09.8.2020 at Lucknow, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court. It is submitted that no cause of action arises in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. In support of his submission, he relied upon the
judgement of the Full Bench judgement of this Court in Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Village and Post Lilari, Police Station Kopagranj, District Mau, which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is maintainable and is liable to be entertained before this Hon'ble Court. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgement of Apex Court in Sri Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in (1975) 2 SCC 671.
Heard rival submissions and perused the record.
In case of Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others (supra), the Full Bench of this Court in paras-39, 40 and 41 has observed as under:-
"39. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law.
In case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640, the Apex Court in para-38 has held as under:-
"38. "Cause of action" is a phenomenon well understood in legal parlance. Mohapatra, J. has well delineated the import of the said expression by referring to the celebrated lexicographies. The collocation of the words "cause of action, wholly or in part, arises" seems to have been lifted from Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which section also deals with the jurisdictional aspect of the courts. As per that section the suit could be instituted in a court within the legal limits of whose jurisdiction the "cause of action wholly or part arises......."
In case of Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769, the Apex Court in paras17 & 41 has held as under:-
"17. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as also Clause (2) of Article 226 thereof, the High Court would exercise its discretionary jurisdiction as also power to issue writ of certiorari in respect of the orders passed by the Subordinate Courts within its territorial jurisdiction or if any cause of action has arisen therewith but the same tests cannot be applied when the appellate court exercises a jurisdiction over Tribunal situated in more than one State. In such a situation, in our opinion, the High Court situated in the State where the first court is located should be considered to be the appropriate appellate authority. Code of Civil Procedure did not contemplate such a situation. It provides for jurisdiction of each court. Even a District Judge must exercise its jurisdiction only within the territorial limits of a State. It is inconceivable under the Code of Civil Procedure that the jurisdiction of the District Court would be exercisable beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the District, save and except in such matters where the law specifically provides therefor.
In case of Rajendra Chigravelu vs. R.K. Mishra reported in (2010) 1 SCC 457, the Apex Court in para-9 has held as under:-
"9........The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause (2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of cause of action (that bundle of fact which gives a petitioner, a right to suit) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of the State will have the jurisdiction."
In case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329, the Apex Court in para-16 has held as under:-
"16........In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction."
We have occasion to peruse the record and reliefs, which are being pressed before us. Admittedly, the alleged encounter took place at Lucknow and the first information report was lodged by the sixth respondent at Police Station Sarojini Nagar, District Lucknow registered as Case Crime No.378/2020 under Section 307/34 IPC. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no cause of action arises wholly or in part in the territorial jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad.
In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.
Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that leave may be accorded so that appropriate writ petition may be filed at Lucknow Bench of this Court.
The writ petition is dismissed, as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to file a writ petition before appropriate Court.
Order Date :- 15.12.2021 RKP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition concerning an alleged encounter at Lucknow, where the petitioner resides in Mau.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court in absence of any part of the cause of action arising within its territorial jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶15
Rajendra Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India and others (2005) 1 UPLBEC 108
Sri Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate TribunalReferred¶13
Sri Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 · Who else cites this
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of MaharashtraReferred¶19
Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 7 SCC 640 · Who else cites this
Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central ExciseReferred¶21
Ambica Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 6 SCC 769 · Who else cites this
Rajendra Chigravelu vs. R.K. MishraReferred¶24
Rajendra Chigravelu vs. R.K. Mishra (2010) 1 SCC 457 · Who else cites this
Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶26
Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 329 · Who else cites this
Saroj Lata Pandey
State of U.P.
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
