Dismissed

Rajesh Arora and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2019CRLW/15/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR and transfer of investigation. The Court held that since investigation culminated with charge-sheet filing and cognizance in MP, it could not entertain the plea, distinguishing a Supreme Court precedent where investigation was pending.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh Courts accepted; investigation transfer and quash prayers rejected.

Rajesh Arora and Ors. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 211/2016

¶3

Anubhav Ajmani S/o Shri Ashok Ajmani Aged 33 years, R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kripalani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

Ashok Ajmani S/o Late Shri Hansraj Ajmani Aged 60 years, R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kripalani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

Alka Ajmani W/o Shri Ashok Ajmani Aged 55 years, R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kripalani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Madhya Pradesh, through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Bhopal (M.P.)

¶9

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

¶10

Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

¶11

Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

¶12

SHO Police Station, Mahila Thana Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Garima Batra Ajmani W/o Anubhav Ajmani, D/o Shri Mahesh Batra R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kriplai Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) at present above Param MRI, Mandre Ki Mata, Pawan Sahab Ki Bagichi, Near Medical College, Lashkar, Gwalior (M.P.)

¶15

….Complainant-Respondent Connected With

¶16

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 15/2017

¶17

1 Rajesh Arora S/o Late Hans Raj Ajmani, Aged 55 years, R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kriplani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶18

2 Smt. Kiran Arora W/o Shri Rajesh Arora, aged about 52 years, R/o Plot No.464, Hans Villa, Aacharya Kriplani Nagar, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

¶19

3 Abhinav Ajmani S/o Shri Ashok Ajmani, aged about 31 years R/o 67, 4Th Floor, Kuhat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034.

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 6)

[CRLW-211/2016]

1 State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Bhopal, Mp.

¶25

2 Director General Of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

¶26

3 Superintendent Of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

¶27

4 SHO, Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh.

¶28

5 Garima Batra Ajmani, D/o Shri Mahesh Batra, R/o Above Param Mri, Mandre Ki Mata, Pawar Sahab Ki Bagichi, Near Medical College, Lashkar, Gwalior, Mp.

¶29

6 State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S S Hora Mr. Suresh Sahni with Mr. R.M. Sharma and Mr. Ankit Agarwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. R.N. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Snehdeep Khayalia Mr. V R Bajwa
	Mr. Ajatshatru Mina with Mr. Sumeer Sodhi Mr. Gaurav Singh
For State	: Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶32

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶33

Judgment / Order

¶34

08/01/2019

¶35

Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.211/2016 have prayed for quashing of F.I.R. No.11/16 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior City and any proceedings undertaken consequent thereto. Criminal Writ Petition No.15/2017 has been preferred with a similar prayer for quashing of F.I.R. and an additional prayer of transferring the investigation of F.I.R. from Police Station Mahila Thana, Gwalior City to Police Station Mahila Thana, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (East). An application has been filed in Writ Petition No.211/2016 for amendment of the writ petition,

¶36

(3 of 6)

¶37

[CRLW-211/2016]

¶38

seeking prayer for transferring of the investigation from Madhya Pradesh to Jaipur.

¶39

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that this Court vide order dated 27.05.2016, waived the office objection with regard to jurisdiction, thereafter, Court vide order dated 02.06.2016, directed the Police Station (Mahila Thana, Gwalior) not to take any coercive action against the petitioners in F.I.R. No.11/16. Complainant approached the Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 12.08.2016, dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) as withdrawn, however, complainant was given liberty to agitate the point of jurisdiction interalia by referring to the pendency of the parallel proceedings before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The Apex Court further directed the High Court to deal with the plea, if raised, as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by disposal of the SLP.

¶40

Petitioners of Criminal Writ Petition No.211/2016 filed a writ petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Apex Court seeking stay of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh Courts as the matter was seized with the Rajasthan High Court. The said writ petition (Criminal No.80/2018) was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 04.05.2018, with liberty to the petitioners to avail proper remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law and approach the High Court for earlier disposal of the case.

¶41

After filing of the present writ petitions, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior (District). Court took cognizance against the petitioners and framed charges against them. The order vide which charges were framed was challenged by the petitioners by filing Criminal Revision Petition

¶42

(4 of 6)

¶43

[CRLW-211/2016]

¶44

before the Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Gwalior, the said revision petition was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 14.12.2018.

¶45

Petitioners approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench of Gwalior by filing Writ Petition No.14461/2018 for staying the trial proceedings before the Court JMFC, Gwalior till decision of the present Writ Petition No.211/2016 as well as Writ Petition No.15/2017 pending before the High Court of Rajasthan. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 29.08.2018.

¶46

In the present writ petitions, certain applications have been moved. One, amongst the applications, is for deciding the question of jurisdiction before deciding the matter on merits. This Court deems it proper to first deal with the application pertaining to jurisdiction.

¶47

It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that major part of cause of action have arisen at Jaipur, only part of cause of action has arisen at Gwalior, as per bare reading of F.I.R., though in another writ petition, it is mentioned that no part of cause of action had arisen at Gwalior.

¶48

Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on “Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶49

Others.” (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 640, wherein, the Apex Court held that if part of cause of action have arisen within the jurisdiction of a particular High Court, High Court can entertain the writ petition. The Apex Court in the facts of that case, transferred the investigation from Shillong to Mumbai as Shillong police had admitted that major part of cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai.

¶50

(5 of 6)

¶51

[CRLW-211/2016]

¶52

Counsel for respondents contends that part of cause of action has arisen at Madhya Pradesh, there is no report by police authorities of MP that they do not want to investigate. Police has already submitted charge-sheet, Court has taken cognizance and has framed charges against the petitioners. Petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of Courts at MP by filing Criminal Revision against the charge order which stands dismissed hence looking to the advanced stage of the case and relief sought in the petitioner, two Courts should not exercise jurisdiction.

¶53

I have considered the contentions. 11. The moot question which now remains before the Court is as to whether after filing of the charge-sheet and after taking of cognizance and framing of charges, the investigation can be transferred from Madhya Pradesh to Jaipur. Suffice to say that the investigation is already over as charge-sheet has been filed, Court has taken cognizance and have framed charges, the question of transferring the investigation of the case from Madhya Pradesh to Jaipur, therefore, do not arises. Judgment “Navinchandra N.

¶54

Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.” (supra) on

¶55

facts have application on the present case as in the case before the Apex Court investigation was pending and Shillong Police had admitted that major part of cause of action had arisen at Mumbai, whereas in the present case investigation has culminated and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶56

This Court is of the view that once petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of Madhya Pradesh Courts by filing Writ Petition and thereafter, filing Criminal Revision Petition against framing of charges, it would not be proper to entertain the present writ petitions on the pretext that part of cause of action

¶57

(6 of 6)

¶58

[CRLW-211/2016]

¶59

have arisen at Jaipur. The application filed by the respondents challenging the jurisdiction of this Court is allowed. The writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, as this Court in view of the present status of the case do not deem it proper to exercise the writ jurisdiction.

¶60

The criminal writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. However it is made clear that this Court is not passing any order on merits of the case. All other pending applications stand disposed. Stay application also stands disposed.

¶61

An oral prayer is made by counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.15/17 to grant Leave To Appeal to the Supreme Court, in view of the substantial question of law. This Court is not inclined to accede to the request made by counsel for the petitioners as no substantial question pertaining to interpretation of The Constitution of India is involved in the case.

¶62

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶63

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶64

Arti/23-24

Rajesh Arora and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Arora and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpendra Joshi S/O Shri Kailash Chand Joshi B/C Brahman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mangal Chand Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Harnak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt. Savitri Devi Vs State and Ors.

Anubhav Ajmani and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Prem Prakash S/O Late Sriram B/C Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan