Kailash Rathi vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Kailash Rathi, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices/summons dated April 3, 2023, May 2, 2023, and June 5, 2023, issued by police officials at Police Station Sector 10-A, Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner contended that these notices were untenable and devoid of jurisdiction as he resides and works from Delhi, while the notices were issued by police in Gurugram. The respondents, State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., submitted a Status Report indicating no complaint was registered in Delhi. The notices were issued concerning a dispute between the petitioner and his erstwhile partner, respondent No. 6. The partnership deed for JMD Foods, in which the petitioner is a partner, was executed on a Haryana stamp paper and registered with a GST certificate by the Government of Haryana. Respondent No. 6 alleged the petitioner forged a bill of material in a transaction with M/s Nakodia Marketing Agency.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. The Court reasoned that while a part of the cause of action arising within the High Court's territory can grant territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2), it is not a determinative factor for compelling the court to decide on merits, as writ jurisdiction is discretionary. The doctrine of forum conveniens, which considers where the substantial cause has arisen and where substantial evidence is available, was invoked. The Court emphasized that criminal law is local in nature, and the place of the offense dictates jurisdiction, unlike civil proceedings. Extrapolation of civil law concepts like 'cause of action' onto criminal law is cautioned against, citing Supreme Court judgments like Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra. The Court distinguished between 'maintainability' and 'entertainability' of a writ petition, stating that even if maintainable, a petition may not be entertained for various reasons. Given that the alleged events and the partnership's registration had significant connections to Haryana, and no cause of action arose within Delhi, the Court found no ground to entertain the petition. The petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging notices issued by police officials in Gurugram, Haryana, when the petitioner resides and works in Delhi? (Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the doctrine of cause of action). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices/summons were issued without jurisdiction as they originated from Gurugram, Haryana, while he operates from Delhi. He contended that the notices were vague and did not specify the purpose for which his presence was required, making them liable to be quashed. Revenue/State's Arguments: While not explicitly stating arguments in the judgment, the Status Report filed by the respondents provided the factual basis for the issuance of the notices in Gurugram, Haryana, relating to a dispute and alleged forgery concerning a partnership registered in Haryana and involving transactions with a Haryana-based entity. The respondents implicitly argued that the cause of action or the substantial connection to the alleged offense lay outside Delhi's jurisdiction.