Madras HC Declines To Order India Probe Into Brunei Store Owner’s Alleged ₹50-Crore Misappropriation By Former Employee, Citing Lack Of Jurisdictional Material

The petitioner, an NRI who operated departmental stores in Brunei, alleged that the seventh respondent, a former employee there, misappropriated cash collections over a period of time, with the total loss estimated at approximately ₹50 crores.

The alleged irregularities came to light in 2015.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the police in Pudukkottai to act on his representation and take action against respondents 4–12.

The Court noted that the employment, stores, and transactions concerned were in Brunei, and that the petitioner had not placed sufficient material establishing that an essential part of the alleged offence occurred in India or that the statutory requirements for investigating an offence committed outside India were met.

The Court considered the limits on the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in seeking to compel a police investigation.

It held that an Indian investigating agency cannot be directed to investigate conduct occurring abroad unless a legally sufficient territorial connection with India or the applicable statutory basis for investigating an offence committed outside India is established.

The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent; it states these jurisdictional principles in general terms.

The alleged misappropriation concerned cash collections, business operations, and accounts of stores located in Brunei, where the seventh respondent was employed.

The petitioner’s Indian citizenship or residence, and the alleged scale of the loss, did not by themselves establish Indian police jurisdiction.

As the petitioner had not shown that an essential part of the alleged offence occurred in India or otherwise demonstrated the statutory basis for an extraterritorial investigation, the Court found no basis to compel the police to investigate.

It noted that the petitioner could pursue remedies in Brunei or approach Indian authorities if the required connection or statutory basis could be shown.

The dismissal did not preclude the petitioner from pursuing remedies in Brunei or approaching the appropriate Indian authorities if part of the alleged offence was shown to have occurred in India or the statutory requirements for investigating an offence committed outside India were otherwise satisfied.