Jabar Sadiq vs The District Superintendent of Police

Court
Madras High Court

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011530122026}
Jabar Sadiq
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The District Superintendent of Police,
Office of District Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai.
4. Jasmine Banu
5. Subaitha Kani
6. Rilwan Begam
7. Abdul Kaboor
8. Abdul Pari
9. Anwar Ali
10.Aattukkal Raja
11.Aattukkal Rahuman
12.Sahul Hameed
..Respondents
__________
Page  1  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ or order or direction or in the nature of Writ of
st
Mandamus directing the 1 Respondent to issue necessary direction to the
rd
3 Respondent to take appropriate action as against respondents No.4 to
12 on the basis of the petitioner’s representation dated 07.08.2026 made
st
to the 1 respondent in person and pass such further or other orders as this
Court may deem fit.
For Petitioner : M/s.Dhanasekaran. P
For Respondents : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Counsel for State of TN (Crl. Side)
for R1 to R3
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate
directions to the respondent police to take action on his complaint relating
to the alleged misappropriation of substantial amounts of money by the
th
7 respondent, who was formally employed in the petitioner's
departmental store situated in Brunei.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a Non-Resident Indian
business owner and has been operating a chain of 11 departmental stores
__________
Page  2  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
th
in Brunei for nearly 25 years. The 7 respondent was employed in the
petitioner's business established in Brunei, drawing a salary which
allegedly went up to Rs. 50,000/- per month. According to the petitioner,
th
the 7 respondent, during the course of his employment, systematically
misappropriated the daily cash collections of the departmental stores,
involving amounts exceeding Rs. 1 lakh on several occasions, and the
total alleged misappropriation is stated to be approximately Rs. 50 crores.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the alleged financial
irregularities came to light in the year 2015, following complaints
received from suppliers regarding non payment of their dues. On
verification of the accounts and business transactions, the petitioner
th
allegedly discovered that the 7 respondent had misappropriated the cash
collections over a considerable period. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the
intervention of the respondent police for taking appropriate criminal
th
action against the 7 respondent.
4. The question arises for consideration is whether the respondent
police in India can be compelled, by way of Writ of Mandamus, to
investigate allegations relating to offences which are stated to have
occurred entirely outside the territorial jurisdiction of India. Admittedly,
__________
Page  3  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
th
the employment of the 7 respondent was in Brunei, the departmental
stores were situated in Brunei, and the alleged misappropriation relates to
the daily cash collections generated from the business operations
conducted in Brunei. The alleged acts of misappropriation, therefore, are
stated to have taken place in Brunei. The mere fact that the petitioner is
an Indian citizen or that he may be residing in India would not, by itself,
confer territorial jurisdiction upon the respondent police to investigate an
offence allegedly committed in a foreign country.
5. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed sufficient
material before this Court to establish that any essential part of the
alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the
respondent police or that the statutory requirements for investigating an
offence committed outside have been satisfied. The allegations primarily
relate to the internal business transactions, cash collections and accounts
of commercial establishments situated in Brunei.
6. This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations and
the substantial amount allegedly involved. However, the magnitude of the
alleged financial loss cannot, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction upon
an investigating agency which otherwise lacks jurisdiction under law.
__________
Page  4  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
The petitioner cannot seek a direction from this Court compelling the
respondent police to undertake an investigation without first establishing
the legal basis for exercising such jurisdiction.
7. It is also relevant to observe that the petitioner is not without
remedy. If the alleged acts constitute offences under the laws applicable
in Brunei, it is open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate criminal
remedies before the competent authorities in Brunei. If any part of the
alleged criminal transaction has a legally identifiable connection with
India, the petitioner is also at liberty to place the relevant materials before
the competent authority for examining whether the provisions relating to
offences committed outside India are attracted.
8. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the
considered view that no positive direction can be issued to the respondent
police to investigate the alleged occurrence, which admittedly took place
in Brunei, in the absence of material establishing the requisite territorial
or statutory jurisdiction.
9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is
made clear that this order shall not preclude the petitioner from working
__________
Page  5  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
out his remedies in Brunei or from approaching the appropriate
authorities in India, if any part of the alleged offence is shown to have
been committed within India or if the statutory requirements for
investigation of an offence committed outside India are otherwise
satisfied.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mar/skn
__________
Page  6  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
To
1. The District Superintendent of Police,
Office of District Superintendent of Police,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch,
Pudukkottai.
4. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
__________
Page  7  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )

WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
mar/skn
WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026
03-11-2026
__________
Page  8  of  8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 07:36:05 pm )