Sunder Arora Etc. Vs. Ajay Chaturvedi & Ors.  INSC 1325 (29 July
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.943-945 OF 2002 Shyam Sunder Arora
Etc. ...Appellant(s) Versus Ajay Chaturvedi and Ors. Etc. Etc. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
learned counsel for the parties.
impugned order, the High Court has quashed First Information Report Nos.315 of
2000 and 434 of 2000 lodged at police station, Vigyan Nagar, Kota on the
grounds that no offence was committed within the jurisdiction the court at
Kota; that no offence was committed under the Indian Penal Code (for short,
`IPC') and the offence, if any, was committed under the Companies Act for which
the complaint could have been filed only at the place of company's registered
office, i.e., Mumbai.
carefully perused the two First Information Reports and are convinced that the
offence was committed not only under the Companies Act, but also under the
various provisions of the IPC and the High Court was not justified in holding
otherwise. We are further of the view that in respect of the offence committed
under the Companies Act, courts at Mumbai may have jurisdiction, but the
offence under various provisions of the IPC was committed within the
jurisdiction of courts at Kota. This being the position, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
2 - Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned order rendered by the High
Court is set aside and petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, filed before the High Court are dismissed. Now the Police
shall proceed to investigate the cases in accordance with law.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI]
July 29, 2009.