Allahabad High Court
Girish Chandra Saxena And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. on 28 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ4684
Author: U.S. Tripathi
Bench: J.C. Gupta, U.S. Tripathi
JUDGMENT U.S. Tripathi, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 arid 2 to wash of their hands from the investigation of case crime No. 262 of 2000 under Sections 498A, 504/506 and 120B, IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. P. S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and commanding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer investigation to the concerned police station Subhash Nagar, Bareilly.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is clear from the allegations of the FIR of the impugned case (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) that the alleged occurrence of the offences took place at the residence of petitioners i.e. Subhash Nagar, P. S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly and the First Information Report was lodged at P. S. Kotwali. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and no offence is alleged to have been committed at Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. Therefore, the investigation of the case was to be made by the concerned police station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. He further contended that the police of P. S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad has got no jurisdiction to investigate the case as per Section 156, Cr.P.C. In support of his above contention, he also placed reliance on Division Bench case of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. (1993) 30 All Cri C 344 (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 34048 of 1992 decided on November 7, 1992) in which it was held as below :-
Sri V.C. Tiwari assisted by Sri A. K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that if the entire allegations made in the first information report is taken to be correct, the police of Police Station Kotwali, Mathura has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case.
It may be stated here that statement was made at the Bar that no counter-affidavit is to be filed because the arguments on the question as to whether territorial jurisdiction for investigating the case crime, if any, lies within the district of Mathura, or not would have to be decided only on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR.
Section 177, Cr.P.C. says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 156, Cr.P.C. says that for determination of local jurisdiction of a police station, the provisions of Section 177, Cr.P.C. shall have to be borrowed. This takes us to consider as to what allegations in the First Information Report in the present case are ?
4. After quoting the contents of First Information Report it was further held that consequently, there is force in the arguments of Sri V.C. Tiwari that the offence, if any, in the instant case happened in Bareilly...Consequently this case was registered only under Section 498A, IPC and at the top it was indicated that the case crime related to police station Kotwali, Bareilly. The Bench concluded that in view of the aforesaid discussions this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The police of Police Station Kotwali, Mathura shall not investigate the case crime under Section 498A, IPC registered at police station Kotwali, Mathura and shall transfer the same to police station Kotwali, Bareilly for investigation in accordance with law.
5. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand contended that in view of subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) JIG 2000 (1) (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 3596 (decided on 5-10-1999) the observation of the Division Bench's case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is no good law. In the case of Satvinder Kaur (supra) on 19-1-1992 a complaint was lodged by appellant at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala making various allegations of torture and dowry demand against her husband and parents-in-law. Thereafter, she came to Delhi to live with her parents. Within that time also, threats by her husband continued. On 30th April, 1992 a complaint was lodged against her husband in Women Cell, Delhi. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1993, the impugned First Information Report No. 34 of 1993 under Sections 406 and 498A, IPC for the alleged occurrence dated 9th December, 1990 at Patiala was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. The husband filed petition in Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR No. 34 of 1993 on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint were false and mala fide and no part of the cause of action for investigation or trial of an offence arose within Delhi. The High Court quashed the First Information Report on the ground that Investigating Officer at Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction. In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing the provisions of Sections 156, 168, 169 and 170 Cr.P.C. as well as Chapter XIII containing Sections 177 and 178 Cr.P.C. held as below :-
It is true that the territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under Sub-section (1) to the extent that the Officer can investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such Police Station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, Sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer in charge of the Police Station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station, then, FIR can be forwarded to the Police Station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the First Information Report and/or investigate it.
It was further held, "A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that Section 177 provides for "ordinary" place of inquiry in trial. Section 178 inter alia provides for place of inquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was committed partly in one local area and partly in other and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.
In paragraph 15 it was observed : "Hence in the present case, the High Court committed grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station at Delhi. The appreciation of the evidence is the function of the Courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of investigation, the material collected by an investigation officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that Police Station Officer of particular Police Station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas an offence was committed, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, the said offence can be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart, Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate. The High Court has completely overlooked the said embargo when it entertained the petition of Respondent No. 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction".
6. With the above observations the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and order passed by the High Court, quashing the First Information Report, was set aside and Investigating Officer was directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.
7. In view of above subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court we are unable to subscribe the view of the Division Bench's case relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. In view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur AIR 1999 SC 3596 (supra) the investigation of the impugned case by the police of Police Station Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad cannot be stopped. Therefore, the writ petition has no force and it is, accordingly, dismissed.