Doctrine of Forum Conveniens Bars Writ Jurisdiction Where Core Cause of Action Concerns Foreign State Investigation

The petitioners, residents of Madhya Pradesh and directors of a private limited company, challenged the freezing of their ICICI Bank account located in Bhopal.

The account was frozen following instructions from the Karnataka Police (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2) in relation to Crime No. 19/2026 registered at Cyber Crime Police Station, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, under the Karnataka Police Act, the I.T. Act, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The petitioners received notices under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requiring their personal appearance in Karnataka.

They contended that the freezing was illegal as it lacked Magisterial permission required under Section 106 of the BNSS and sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notices and a mandamus to de-freeze the account.

1. Whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has the territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the petition when the underlying investigation and freezing orders originated in Karnataka.

2. Whether the doctrine of forum conveniens applies to preclude the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in this matter.

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India permits a High Court to exercise jurisdiction if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within its territory.

The doctrine of forum conveniens allows a court to refuse jurisdiction if another forum has a more substantial connection to the dispute.

M/s Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India: establishing that a small fraction of cause of action does not compel a court to decide a matter on merits.

Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim: stating that facts must constitute a "material, essential, or integral part" of the cause of action.

Ambica Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise.

Section 106 of the BNSS regarding the power to seize property/freeze accounts.

The court reasoned that although the petitioners' bank account is maintained in Bhopal and the freezing order was implemented there, these facts do not constitute an "integral or substantial" part of the cause of action.

The bank acted merely as a complying agency.

The core grievance—the legality and necessity of the freezing order—is intrinsically linked to the criminal investigation pending in Kalaburagi, Karnataka.

The court observed that examining the legality of the freezing order would require scrutinizing an investigation falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court of Karnataka.

Consequently, because the records and Investigating Officers are located in Karnataka, that forum is better suited to adjudicate the dispute.

It held that the petition is not maintainable before the Madhya Pradesh High Court due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction and the principle of forum conveniens.

The writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the High Court of Karnataka or the competent jurisdictional court where the investigation is pending.

The court clarified it expressed no opinion on the merits of the de-freezing request.