IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL 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

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By the 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.

We have 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/-

- 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]

New Delhi, July 29, 2009.