A High Court cannot transfer an investigation to the CBI absent territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioner, a daily labourer and father of the deceased, alleged that his son was assaulted and murdered in Hyderabad after seeking payment of wages.

He complained to the local police in West Bengal, alleging that they had failed to act.

A case concerning the death had already been registered and was under investigation by Chittoor Police Station, GRP Guntakal, Andhra Pradesh.

The petitioner sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI, contending that witnesses and the deceased’s co-workers were residents of West Bengal and had not effectively participated in the investigation

Whether the High Court could direct transfer to the CBI of an investigation being conducted in Andhra Pradesh when the alleged incident occurred there and no part of the cause of action arose in West Bengal

Whether the petitioner’s connection to West Bengal, including the residence there of the petitioner and the deceased’s co-workers, provided a basis for the Court to exercise territorial jurisdiction over the investigation

Article 226 of the Constitution permits a High Court to entertain a writ petition where at least part of the cause of action arises within its territorial jurisdiction; the petitioner’s place of residence alone does not determine the cause of action.

In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 82, the Supreme Court held that territorial jurisdiction depends on the facts of each case and requires the High Court to ascertain whether any part of the cause of action arose within its territory.

The Court also referred to Vir Karan Awasthy v. State of U.P., CWP 24036 of 2015, and Shri Anil Anand v. State, WP (Crl) No. 1008/2010, as decisions declining to interfere where the relevant cause of action or investigation lay outside the respective High Court’s territorial jurisdiction

The Court found that the alleged assault and death occurred in Andhra Pradesh and that the investigation was being conducted there.

It concluded that nothing relevant to the alleged incident had occurred in West Bengal and that no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.

Applying Navinchandra N. Majithia, the Court held that the petitioner’s and co-workers’ West Bengal residence did not confer territorial jurisdiction.

It therefore declined to direct the transfer of an investigation pending in Andhra Pradesh

The judgment’s final paragraph identifies the dismissed matter as “WPA 1435 of 2024,” although the case heading identifies it as W.P.A. No. 1453 of 2024.