Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhirajlal P. Desai, was the original complainant who filed a complaint against respondent nos.2 to 6 alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 (MOFA) read with Section 14 thereof, and also under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.2 is a partnership firm doing business as builders, developers and promoters, and respondent nos.3 to 6 are its partners. The learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, after examining the petitioner on oath, formed an opinion that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondents for an offence punishable under Section 13 of MOFA read with Section 14 thereof. By an order dated 9th March 2012, the Magistrate issued process against respondent nos.2 to 6. Aggrieved by this, the respondents moved the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai by filing a revision application, praying that the order issuing process be quashed and set aside. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, by an order dated 3rd February 2014, allowed the revision application and set aside the order issuing process, holding that the learned Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the alleged offences. The Sessions Judge directed the Magistrate to pass an order for return of the complaint for presentation before the proper Court. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) invoking the inherent powers of the Court. The High Court examined the issue of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the agreement for sale was executed in Mumbai and the consideration was paid in Mumbai, and therefore part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, giving the Magistrate jurisdiction under Section 179 CrPC. The respondents contended that the property was located outside Mumbai and the alleged offences, if any, occurred at the place of the property. The High Court held that under Section 179 CrPC, when an act is done in one place and the consequence ensues in another place, the offence can be tried in either place. Since the agreement was executed and consideration was paid in Mumbai, part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai. The Court further noted that the complaint alleged failure to execute the agreement and misuse of amounts, which are acts that occurred in Mumbai. Therefore, the Magistrate at Mumbai had territorial jurisdiction. The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and restored the order of the Magistrate issuing process. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Section 179 CrPC - Offence under MOFA - Where an agreement for sale of flat is executed and consideration is paid in Mumbai, part of cause of action arises in Mumbai, conferring jurisdiction on Mumbai Magistrate - Held that the Sessions Judge erred in holding that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction (Paras 1-17). B) Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 - Offence under Section 13 read with Section 14 - Complaint by flat purchaser - Allegations of failure to execute agreement and misuse of amounts - Magistrate issued process after examining complainant - Sessions Judge set aside process on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction - Held that the Sessions Judge's order was erroneous and set aside (Paras 1-17). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Return of Complaint - Section 201 CrPC - When a complaint is returned for want of jurisdiction, the Magistrate must follow procedure under Section 201 - In this case, the Sessions Judge directed return of complaint - Held that the order of Sessions Judge is set aside and the Magistrate's order issuing process is restored (Paras 1-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was correct in holding that the Magistrate at Mumbai lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under MOFA, and whether the order of the Sessions Judge setting aside the process and directing return of complaint is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Addl. Sessions Judge dated 3rd February 2014, and restored the order of the Magistrate dated 9th March 2012 issuing process against respondent nos.2 to 6.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Section 179 CrPC
- Offence under Section 13 MOFA read with Section 14
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- Return of complaint under Section 201 CrPC
