Krishna Kumar Bhargava And Others v. Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay And Another

K.C Agrawal, J.:— Through this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint filed by Smt. Roshan, respondent 2, against the petitioners, registered as Criminal Case No. 107.S of 1985, Smt. Roshan v. Krishna Kumar Bhargava in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivoli, Bombay. Smt. Roshan respondent 2, filed a complaint for the offences against the petitioners under S. 500 read with S. 109, I.P.C and/or 34, I.P.C 12GB, 501, 502, I.P.C

2. Krishna Kumar Bhargava, petitioner 1, is the Chief Editor of the monthly magazine “Sachchi Kahaniyan” with which all the petitioners are also associated. In its issue of the month of May, 1985 at page 59 under the Heading “Didi, Thuthu,” a story was published along with the photographs. The respondent 2 alleged that the allegations made against her that she was trapping customers were absolutely false and were malicious and defamatory. Those allegations had lowered her down in the esteem of her relations, husband and friends. She had suffered heavily in mind, body and reputation in publication of the false story. On the notices of the complaint being received by the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed by them for quashing it on a number of grounds which amongst others are:

(1) No case is made out against the petitioners, and, as such, the complaint was an abuse of the process of the Court; and

(2) the petitioners did not publish the story with the intention to harm the reputation of Smt. Roshan, respondent 2.

3. Before us, the first question that arises for entertaining the writ petition is relating to its maintainability in this Court. The two respondents, who have been impleaded in the writ petition are outside the territorial limits of this Court. These two respondents are:

(i) The Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivoli, Bombay.

(ii) Smt. Roshan, wife of Hafeez Khan, residing at Sanya Buchya Compound, Room No. 15, Dahisar West Bombay.

4. Art. 226 of the Constitution confers on all High Courts wide powers in the matter of issuing writs. The two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by High Court under this Article are:

(i) that the power is to be exercised “throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”, that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction:

(ii) that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue the writs “must be within those territories”.

5. This implies that the persons against whom the writs are sought should be amenable to the jurisdiction of the High Court either by residence or the location within those territories.

6. In the instant case, none of the two respondents resided or carry on business within the territorial limits of this Court. As such, the High Court cannot issue any Mandamus to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay commanding him not to proceed with the complaint which is pending before it Precisely on this ground quashing of the complaint cannot also be ordered. This Court could exercise its powers conferred by Art. 226 of the Constitution if the cause of action either wholly or in part would have arisen within the territorial limit of the Allahabad High Court.

7. The expression “cause of action” is defined in Mulla's Code of Civil Procedure. “The cause of action” means every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the Court”

8. After quoting the aforesaid definition of the “cause of action”, the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Swaika Properties, (1985) 3 SCC 217 : AIR 1985 SC 1289, held:

“In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. The mere service of notice under S. 52(2) of the Act on the respondents at then registered office at 18-B, Brabourne Road, Calcutta, i.e within the territorial limits of the State of West Bengal, could not give rise to a cause of action within that territory unless the service of such notice was an integral part of the cause of action.”

9. In the instant case, the only thing which could be submitted before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners was about the service of the notice of the writ petition on them at Allahabad. Service of notice is not an integral part of the cause of action, inasmuch as for succeeding in the case, service of notice is not material. What is necessary to be established for obtaining the relief claimed in the writ petition was that the complaint filed against the petitioner was the abuse of the process of the Court, there being no case for calling upon the petitioners to answer the complaint. The complaint having been filed at Bombay, its quashing could be prayed by means of a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. Thus, the Metropolitan Magistrate being beyond our territorial jurisdiction, we have no power under Art. 226 of the Constitution to issue the writ. Consequently, without going into the merits of the writ petition, we reject it on the ground of its maintainability.

10. Petition dismissed.