1. The above unnumbered petitions have been filed to quash the four prosecutions pending before the 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, launched by the commercial tax department for certain alleged violations in the matter of filing returns and non-payment of taxes, etc., against the petitioner who has got business both at Bombay as well as at Madras.
2. So on an initial objection taken by the office, relating to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the abovesaid petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners was fully heard on the question of maintainability. The contention of the petitioners is that even though criminal proceedings are pending before the 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay, which is the court subordinate to the Bombay High Court, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above petitions to quash the proceedings before the said Magistrate, who is not subordinate to this Court. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which runs as follows :
'Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'
In view of the above section, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the above petitions. But the words 'any order', 'any court', occurring in section 482 cannot be construed as any order passed by the any court, which is not subordinate to this Court. The power to quash proceedings granted under the Criminal Procedure Code, when exercised by this Court, can only be limited to courts which are subordinate to this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his argument, relies upon the decision reported in L. V. Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer (XI), Enforcement Branch, Greater Bombay  26 STC 579, wherein it has been observed as follows :
''Cause of action' has been understood as referable to the bundle of facts in a legal proceeding and if a limb of that bundle of facts is available, seen or discernible in one particular place which is a seat of the High Court, then such High Court has the power to exercise all the powers conferred on it under article 226(1-A) of the Constitution notwithstanding the fact that the authority against whom the ultimate rule has to be issued and whose act has created a cause of action as a whole or in part, is situate outside its territorial limits.'
In V. Ponnammal v. Sales Tax Officer  27 STC 123 the abovesaid earlier decision was quoted with an approval. In Indo-Marine Agencies (Kerala) Pvt. Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer  45 STC 163, wherein it is observed that in respect of revenue recovery proceedings by the Collector on a certificate issued by the Collector of Bombay, the Kerala High Court has got jurisdiction to pass necessary orders in respect of the recovery. The abovesaid cases relate to cause of action available to a person concerned and the abovesaid decision do not relate to exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts. Hence the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the above decision, will have to be rejected, since they relate to cause of action concerning a person and not regarding exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over the subordinate courts.
3. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is on merits of the case, namely, relating to the prosecution pending before the 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay. In support of his argument that the prosecution should be resorted to as a last resort, he cited the decisions reported in P. K. Haji Gulam Mohideen Sahib v. Commercial Tax Officer, Salem  18 STC 346 and Commissioner of Sales Tax, M.P. v. Radhakisan : 118ITR534(SC) . He further contended that the prosecution launched against the petitioners in the first instance without exploring the other remedies available under the Act is liable to be quashed. This is a matter which shall be gone into by the court having jurisdiction. Therefore, in view of my conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the abovesaid petitions, I direct the office to return the above petitions filed by the petitioners for presentation before a proper court.