Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Section 482—Inherent powers of High Court—Exercise of—Powers of quashing would no doubt be exercised sparingly but where the continuance of investigation would result in complete miscarriage of justice and appears to be only an exercise in pressure tactics, the court should not hesitate to nip such an exercise in the bud.
[Para 34]
Section 482—Order of registration of FIR—Challenged—No part of offence has occurred in Delhi—Lease deed was registered in Jaisalmer where property situate—No clarity regarding the place where lease deed was signed—Possession of property was handed over at Jaisalmer—Argument advanced on behalf of second respondent that since the money i.e., the security deposit and seven months’ rent had been received at Delhi, the Delhi courts would have jurisdiction and moreover the Lease Deed had subjected the disputes to the jurisdiction of New Delhi—Unmerited—Terms of a contract cannot confer a criminal court with jurisdiction as no contract is for the purposes of violating the law, or for the commission of offences—Criminal courts would be bound by vesting of jurisdiction in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code and not the Civil Procedure Code—Delhi Court has no jurisdiction to give direction to register FIR—Further when no cognizable offence is disclosed in FIR, the court would not permit an investigation to go on—Second respondent has been involving the petitioners in multiple litigations both civil and criminal—Present application under Section 156(3) CrPC also filed by second respondent only after the FIR was registered at Mumbai at the instance of petitioner—Petitioners are entitled to relief—Petition allowed.
[Paras 30, 33 to 35]