Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Asifoddin And Anr vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 23 July, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.201810 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.201458 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP.NO.201810/2024:
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED ASIFODDIN
S/O SHABBIRODDIN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT 7-4-127,
Digitally signed by SHAMSIA COONY, RAWAHEL GALLI,
SUMITRA
SHERIGAR BIDAR- 585401, KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH NOW RESIDING AT ABU DHABI,
COURT OF UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,
KARNATAKA
2. TABASSUM SAYED RIYAZUDDIN
C/O MOHAMMED SAIFUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NO.
7-4-127, SHAMSIA COLONY, R4AWAHEL GALLI,
BIDAR 585401, KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL,ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION CHOWBARA ROAD,
BIDAR KARNATAKA,
REPTD BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI- 585103
2. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
BY THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS 5TH FLOOR,
C BLOCK, LOK BHAVAN, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH 226001
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS 9TH FLOOR, TOWER-2,
GOMTINAGAR EXT., SHAHID PATH, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH- 226002,
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RANA PRATAP MARG, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GUDAMBA POLICE STATION, LUCKNOW NORTH
(COMMISSIONERATE LUCKNOW) LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH- 226021
6. MS. ANKURITA SHARMA
D/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
RESIDENT AT PAYAGPUR BHUPGANJ BAZAR,
MASOODPUR BHARAICH
DISTRICT UTTAR PRADESH- 271871,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED
13.05.2024 BEARING CRIME NO. 0184/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-
A REGISTERED BY THE GUDAMBA PS, LUCKNOW DISTRICT,
UTTAR PRADESH UNDER SECTION 498-A, 313, AND 323 IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE-VII, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH AND ALL OTHER
SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE OFFICIALS TO PROVIDE
POLICE PROTECTIONS TO THE PETITIONER.
IN WP.NO. 201458/2024:
BETWEEN:
FAHEEM ALIAS MOHD FAHEEMUDDIN
S/O LATE MOHD. SHABBIRUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDING AT,
7/4/127, SHAMSIYA COLONY,
ROHELE GALLI, BIDAR-585401.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BIDAR TOWN POLICE STATION,
CHOWBARA ROAD,
BIDAR KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
KALABURAGI,
KARNATAKA-585103.
2. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
BY THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
5TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK,
LOK BHAVAN, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
9TH FLOOR, TOWER-2,
GOMTINAGAR EXT.,
SHAHID PATH, LUCKNOW,
UTTAR PRADESH-226002.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
RANA PRATAP MARG,
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226001.
5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
GUDAMBA POLICE STATION,
LUCKNOW NORTH (COMMISSIONEERATE LUCKNOW)
LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH-226021.
6. MS. ANUKURITA SHARMA
D/O ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT PAYAGPUR,
BHUPGANJ BAZAR,
MASOODPUR,
BAHRAICH DISTRICT,
UTTAR PRADESH-271871.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED
13.05.2024 BEARING CRIME NO. 0184/2024 REGISTERED
BY THE GUDAMBA PS, LUCKNOW DISTRICT, UTTAR
PRADESH UNDER SECTION 498-A, 313, AND 323 IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE-VII, LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHER ALL UTTAR SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS QUA THE
PETITIONER; THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE OFFICIALS
TO PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
WP No. 201810 of 2024
C/W WP No. 201458 of 2024
HC-KAR
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri Sanjay A Patil, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2. Notice issued to respondent No.2 is not returned nor
acknowledgment received. Notice to respondent Nos.3 to 6 is
not yet ordered.
3. The present writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure praying to quash and set-aside the FIR
dated 13.05.2024 bearing Crime No.0184/2024 vide Annexure-
A registered by Gudamba PS, Lucknow District, Uttar Pradesh
under Sections 498A, 313 and 323 IPC pending on the file of
the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh and all other subsequent proceedings against the
petitioners and to direct respondent No.1 police officials to
provide police protections to the petitioners.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
4. This Court heard regarding maintainability of the petitions
in view of the prayer referred to supra.
5. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present petition are as under:
Respondent No.6-Ms.Ankurita Sharma, claiming to be the
wife of Mohammed Asifoddin-petitioner No.1 in WP
No.201810/2024 filed a complaint with Gudamba Police
Station, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh for the offence punishable
under Sections 498A, 313 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that
respondent No.6 came in contact with Mohammed Asifoddin in
Bahrain wherein there was physical relationship and on
insistence for marriage, she was insisted to convert herself to
Islam and thereafter, marriage took place on 13.02.2024. She
became pregnant and after completion of five months
pregnancy, Mohammed Asifoddin sent her to Mumbai in the
pretext of medical treatment at Salwa Hospital, Chembur,
Mumbai.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
7. It is her specific allegation that it was a clever sketch of
cheating on her and Mohammed Asifoddin instructed the
doctors to abort the pregnancy.
8. Thereafter, at the instructions of Mohammed Asifoddin,
she had visited his house at Bidar wherein brother-in-law by
name Faheem and other brothers and sisters tortured her
mentally, and physically assaulted her. Being unable to bear
the torture, she had to leave the house. Therefore, she sought
for action.
9. The Gudamba police registered the case in FIR
No.184/2024 and case is now pending for investigation. In the
meantime, petitioners herein have filed the present petitions
seeking quashing of the pending FIR.
10. Grounds urged in the petitions are as under:
The allegations in the FIR taken in its entirety do
not make out a case whatsoever against the
Petitioners herein. The action of the Respondent
No.5 Police in the institution of the FIR and
dragging the name of the Petitioners have caused
serious threat to the life and liberty of the
Petitioners and hence violative of Article-21 of the
Constitution of India.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
That the facts elicited from the Complaint dated
12.05.2024 are devoid of criminality as regards the
Petitioners herein. The Respondent No.6 has given
a criminal colour to a family matter only so as to
harass the petitioners, which is nothing but abuse
of process of law.
That the allegations in the FIR and the Complaint
dated 12.05.2024 if taken into consideration the
allegations against the Petitioners herein do not
prima facie establish any offence much less the
offences as alleged in the FIR and the chances of a
conviction against the Petitioners herein are bleak
and no useful purpose is likely to be served by
allowing a criminal prosecution to be continued
against the Petitioners.
That no allegations of any kind are attracted
against the Petitioners for the offences U/Secs.498-
A, 313 and 323 IPC.
That the cause of action as per the complaint dated
12.05.2024 and the FIR dated 13.05.2024 arose in
Bidar, Karnataka against Petitioners and this
Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction under Article
226(2) of the Constitution of India.
No incident as alleged in the Complaint dated
12.05.2024 and FIR dated 13.05.2024 took place in
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Hence no cause of action
ever arose in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
Further, the Respondent No.5 Police/Court at
Lucknow in the state of Uttar Pradesh has no
territorial jurisdiction to investigate/try the offences
alleged in the FIR whereof cause of action,
admittedly as per complaint, arose in the district of
Bidar in the state of Karnataka and not in Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh.
That the alleged threats were made in Bidar,
Karnataka and the Petitioners is a permanent
resident of Bidar, Karnataka.
That as per the complaint dated 12.05.2024, the
place of residence mentioned is Payagpur,
Bhupganj Bazar, Masoodpur, Bahraich District,
Uttar Pradesh- 271871, which is separate district
and approximately 150 kms away from Lucknow."
11. Sri Sanjay A Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India,
this Court has got jurisdiction to maintain the petitions seeking
quashing of pending FIR before Gudamba Police Station,
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
12. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oil and
Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
(1994)4 SCC 711 wherein, at paragraph 5, it has been held
as under:
"5. Clause (1) of Article 226 begins with a non obstante
clause -- notwithstanding anything in Article 32 -- and
provides that every High Court shall have power
"throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction", to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, "within those
territories" directions, orders or writs, for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other
purpose. Under clause (2) of Article 226 the High Court
may exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause
of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territory
over which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that
the seat of such Government or authority or the residence
of such person is not within those territories. On a plain
reading of the aforesaid two clauses of Article 226 of the
Constitution it becomes clear that a High Court can
exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for
the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights
conferred by Part III of the Constitution or for any other
purpose if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen
within the territories in relation to which it exercises
jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the
Government or authority or the residence of the person
against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not
within the said territories. In order to confer jurisdiction on
the High Court of Calcutta, NICCO must show that at least
a part of the cause of action had arisen within the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
territorial jurisdiction of that Court. That is at best its case
in the writ petition.
6. It is well settled that the expression "cause of action"
means that bundle of facts which the petitioner must
prove, if traversed, to entitle him to a judgment in his
favour by the Court. In Chand Kour v. Partab Singh [ILR
(1889) 16 Cal 98, 102 : 15 IA 156] Lord Watson said:
"... the cause of action has no relation
whatever to the defence which may be set up by
the defendant, nor does it depend upon the
character of the relief prayed for by the plaintiff.
It refers entirely to the ground set forth in the
plaint as the cause of action, or, in other words,
to the media upon which the plaintiff asks the
Court to arrive at a conclusion in his favour."
Therefore, in determining the objection of lack of territorial
jurisdiction the court must take all the facts pleaded in
support of the cause of action into consideration albeit
without embarking upon an enquiry as to the correctness
or otherwise of the said facts. In other words the question
whether a High Court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain a writ petition must be answered on the basis of
the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise
whereof being immaterial. To put it differently, the
question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the
facts pleaded in the petition. Therefore, the question
whether in the instant case the Calcutta High Court had
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition in
question even on the facts alleged must depend upon
whether the averments made in paragraphs 5, 7, 18, 22,
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
26 and 43 are sufficient in law to establish that a part of
the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the
Calcutta High Court."
13. Per contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court
Government Pleader opposes the grounds urged in the petitions
and also contends that very filing of the petitions before this
Court seeking intervention in the matter and quashing the
pending FIR registered by Gudamba Police, Lucknow, Uttara
Pradesh, itself is not maintainable.
14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal
clear that in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs.
Utpal Kumar Basu reported in (1994)4 SCC 711 the Hon'ble
Apex Court while considering clause (2) of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has ruled that the High Court may
exercise its power conferred by clause (1) if the cause of action
wholly or partly has arisen within territorial over which it
exercises jurisdiction notwithstanding with the seat of such
Authority or Government.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
16. In other words, the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with
a civil matter and therefore, the bar of jurisdiction of different
High Courts was not an embargo to exercise the power under
Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.
17. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil and
Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu reported in
(1994)4 SCC 711 case was reiterated in Navinchandra N
Majithia vs. State of Maharastra and others reported in
(2000)7 SCC 640.
18. But it is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that in respect of criminal matters it is the territorial
jurisdiction of the High Court where the criminal case is
registered would have the power to exercise either under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and now under Section 528 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita-2023.
19. Any other view if taken, would only result in a great
chaos in administration of criminal justice system.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
20. Except for the consideration of the request for transit bail
all other actions are to be taken by the jurisdictional criminal
Court.
21. Section 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is
retained in verbatim in Section 6 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita-2023, dealt with Classes of Criminal Courts wherein, it
has been specifically mentioned that, besides the High Courts in
every State there shall be Courts of Session, Judicial
Magistrates of the First Class, Judicial Magistrates of the
Second Class and Executive Magistrates of the Criminal Courts.
22. Each of such Criminal Courts are defined with specific
territorial jurisdiction.
23. Therefore, exercising any power by this Court in respect
of FIR registered before the Gudamba Police Station, Lucknow
District, Uttara Pradesh, would be without power and such a
petition cannot be entertained.
24. Accordingly, the following:
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4168
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.
(ii) However dismissal of the present petitions
shall not preclude the petitioners to seek their
remedy before appropriate Court in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
