Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vishwanath Chintamani Potdar, a resident of Ekurga, Taluka Omerga, District Dharashiv (formerly Osmanabad), Maharashtra, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. He sought directions to the respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, State of Karnataka, and various police officers in Karnataka, to register an FIR and investigate a complaint regarding alleged illegal detention and theft of gold ornaments by police officers from Aland, Sedam, and Madbool/Kalagi Police Stations in Kalaburagi District, Karnataka. The petitioner also sought an investigation by an independent agency like SIT/CBI. The learned APP for the State of Maharashtra raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court examined the averments in the petition and found that the entire cause of action, including the alleged illegal detention and theft, occurred within the territorial limits of the State of Karnataka. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226(2) of Constitution of India - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioner sought directions to police stations in Karnataka to register FIR and investigate complaint of illegal detention and theft - Entire cause of action arose in Karnataka, no part within jurisdiction of Bombay High Court - Held that writ petition is not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to police stations in Karnataka to register an FIR and investigate a complaint of illegal detention and theft.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction. Liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of Constitution
- Cause of action for police inaction
- Maintainability of writ petition against police of another state
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 146
Criminal Writ Petition No.702 of 2026
Sandipkumar C. More, Vaishali Patil-Jadhav
Mr. P. D. Dadpe for Petitioner, Mr. S. J. Salgare APP for Respondent-State
Vishwanath Chintamani Potdar
The State of Maharashtra, The State of Karnataka, The Superintendent of Police Osmanabad, The Superintendent of Police Kalaburagi, Police Inspector Omerga, Police Inspector Aland, Police Inspector Sedam, Police Inspector Madbool/Kalagi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition seeking directions to register FIR and investigate complaint of illegal detention and theft by police officers in Karnataka.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought directions to respondents to register FIR against errant police officers of Aland, Sedam, and Madbool/Kalagi Police Stations in Karnataka and to conduct investigation through independent agency like SIT/CBI.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged illegal detention and theft of gold ornaments by police officers from Karnataka police stations.
Issues
Whether the Bombay High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP raised preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable for lack of territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action arose in Karnataka.
Petitioner's counsel argued that the petition is maintainable, but the Court found no part of cause of action within its jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, a High Court can only exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises wholly or in part within its territorial limits. Since the entire cause of action in this case arose within the State of Karnataka, the Bombay High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned APP has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The entire cause of action, as per the averments in the petition, has arisen within the territorial limits of the State of Karnataka.
Thus, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.702 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. Notices were issued and served upon respondents. At hearing, learned APP raised preliminary objection on maintainability. Court heard the objection and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226(2)
