Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Chand Dhaketa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9249
1 MCRC-15325-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 5 th OF APRIL, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15325 of 2025
GULAB CHAND DHAKETA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shantanu Sharma - advocate for the petitioner/accused is present.
Shri Apoorv Joshi - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State is
present.
ORDER
The present Misc. Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 528 of BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C. readwith Article 226 of
Constitution of India for quashment of FIR case in crime No.371/2024 dated
06/08/2024 for the offence under Section 406, 420, 354, 384 and 120-B of
IPC registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bhilwara, Rajasthan State.
On perusal of record, it appears that entertaining the petition, this
Court has no jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS/482 of Cr.P.C.
At the most, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused may file writ
petition seeking appropriate relief before the concerned High Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused cited case in the matter of
Navinchandrda N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2007) 7
SCC 640 and para 27 is as follows :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9249
2 MCRC-15325-2025
"Tested in the light of the principles laid down in the cases noted
above the Judgment of the High Court under challenge is
unsustainable. The High Court failed to consider all the relevant
facts necessary to arrive at a proper decision on the question of
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction. The Court based its decision on the sole
consideration that the complainant had filed the complaint at
Shillong in the State of Meghalaya and the petitioner had prayed
for quashing the said complaint. The High Court did not also
consider the alternative prayer made in the writ petition that a writ
of mandamus be issued to the State of Meghalaya to transfer the
investigation to Mumbai Police. The High Court also did not B
take note of the averments in the writ petition that filing of the
complaint at Shillong was a mala fide move on the part of the
complainant to harass and pressurize the petitioners to reverse the
transaction for transfer of shares. The relief sought in the writ
petition may be one of the relevant criteria for consideration of the
question but cannot be the sole consideration in the matter. On the
averments made in the writ petition gist of which has been noted
earlier it cannot be said that no part of the cause of action for filing
the writ petition arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Bombay
High Court."
In view of the aforesaid judgment, the present petition is not
maintainable and the remedy is elsewhere lies for the petitioner/accused.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable with
the liberty to the petitioner/accused for filing writ petition within the
territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan High Court.
(DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA)
JUDGE
Aiyer
