http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: C.B.I.ANTI  CORRUPTION  BRANCH,  MUMBAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARAYAN DIWAKAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1999

BENCH: D.P.MOHAPATRA, P.P.  SETHI.

JUDGMENT:

MOHAPATRA,J.

Leave granted.

       We have  heard learned counsel for the parties.  The main question that arises for consideration in this case  is whether,  on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Gauhati High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and  decide the writ petition filed by the respondent.  Another question which  also  arises  is  whether  on  the  facts  and in the circumstances of the case,  the  High  Court  was  right  in quashing  the  First  Information Reports lodged against the respondent.

       The factual backdrop of the case  relevant  for  the present proceedings may be stated thus ;

       The respondent who  is  an  officer  of  the  Indian Administrative  Service was officiating as Collector, Daman, as the regular incumbent was on leave and  he  continued  as In-charge Collector  from  October,  1992 to April 1993.  He was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh in March, 1994.   Prior to  the  transfer of the respondent, three First Information Reports were lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBJ) on 29.9.1993 which were numbered as  RC  64(A)/93-BOM, RC  65(A}/93-BOM and RC 66(A)/93-BOM containing allegations, inter  alia,  that  the  respondent  and  one  Tapas  Neogi, Architect  and  Town  Planner,  Government of Daman, entered into a criminal conspiracy with the accused land owners  and prepared  or caused to be prepared a forged map of Daman and increased or reduced the area of  industry  zone.    It  was further alleged that some land owners of Bimapore village of Daman  named in the First Information Reports were benefited thereby.

       After  receipt  of  the First Information Reports, a wireless message was sent by the Superintendent  of  Police, CBI,  ACB, Bombay to the Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh. Itanagar with a request to advise  the  respondent  to  meet Shri A.K.  Asthana, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bombay in connection  with  investigation  of  RC  64(A)/93-BOM in PWD Guest House at 10.30 AM on 27.4.1994.  It was stated in  the message that  the matter was most urgent.  On being informed about the wireless message, the respondent  filed  the  writ petition in the High Court of Gauhati with the prayer, inter alia,  to  guash the First Information Reports and for other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

consequential benefits.

       An objection was raised on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition  against  the  maintainability  of  the case.   A  Single  Judge  of the High Court allowed the writ petition  holding  that  the  Court  had   jurisdiction   to entertain  the  writ petition and that the case is a fit one for quashing of the  First  Information  Reports.    On  the question of jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge held that the communication of the wireless, message to the respondent at  Itanagar,  Arunachal  Pradesh was a part of the cause of action for filing the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition filed in the Gauhati High  Court  was  maintainable under Article  226(2) of the Constitution.  On merits of the case, the learned Single Judge relied on the  averments,  in the writ  petition.  As noted earlier, the writ petition was allowed.  The appeal  filed  by  the  appellant  before  the Division   Bench   was   dismissed   at  the  motion  stage. Therefore, the present appeal by the C.B.I.

       The thrust  of  the  submissions  made  by  Ms.   K. Amareshwari, the learned Senior Counsel  appearing  for  the appellant  was  that  the  High  Court  of  Gauhati  had  no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the writ petition since no part of the cause of action for  filing  the  case  arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.  Referring to  the wireless message, the learned Counsel submitted that it cannot be said to provide any  cause  of  action  to  the respondent to file the writ petition seeking quashing of the First  Information  Report  for  the  simple reason that the wireless  message  does  not  even  state  that  the   First Information  Report contains certain allegations against the respondent and does not give any indication about the nature of the allegations made  against  him.    According  to  the learned  counsel all that the wireless message contains is a request to

       the  respondent  to  meet  the  Inspector, CBI, ACB, Bombay on the day, place and time mentioned in the  message, in  connection  with  the  investigation  of case No.RC64(A) 93-BOM.

       Shri Mahendra Anand, learned Senior Counsel for  the respondent  strenuously  urged that the High Court was right in holding that it had jurisdiction to entertain and  decide the writ  petition.    However,  in course of his arguments, Shri Anand, on instructions  from  the  respondent  who  was present in Court stated before us that the respondent has no objection  if  the  impugned  judgment is quashed leaving it open to the respondent to approach the competent  Court  for redress of his grievance at appropriate stage and sought for an observation that if the First Information Reports and the proceedings  started on the basis of the same are challenged by the respondent, the Court will decide  the  case  without being  influenced  by the observations and findings recorded in the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court.

       In view of  what  has  been  fairly  stated  by  the learned  Counsel for the respondent, it is not necessary for us to enter into merits of the case, suffice it to say  that on  the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, we have no hesitation to hold  that  the  Gauhati High Court was clearly’ in error in deciding the question of jurisdiction in favour of the respondent.  In our considered view,  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the respondent in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Gauhati High Court was not maintainable.

       Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the judgment  of  the  Division Bench confirming  the  same  are  quashed.   It goes without saying that in any proceeding in which the First Information Report or the criminal  proceedings  is  challenged  by  the respondent,  the  case  will be decided by the Court without being influenced by the observations  and  findings  in  the impugned judgment of the High Court.