WP Crl.(MD)/5808/2026 of Jabar Sadiq Vs The District Superintendent of Police on 3 November 2026

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 7th 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 in Brunei for nearly 25 years. The 7th 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, the 7th 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 allegedly discovered that the 7th respondent had misappropriated the cash collections over a considerable period. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the intervention of the respondent police for taking appropriate criminal action against the 7th 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, the employment of the 7th 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.

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 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

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.

K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. mar/skn WP Crl.(MD) No. 5808 of 2026 03-11-2026