Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
B L Koli vs Union Of India on 16 March, 2010
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Crl. MIscellaneous Petition No.1796/2009 (B.L.Koli Vs. Union of India) Date of Order : 16.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Suresh Sahni, for the petitioner. Mr.Tej Prakash Sharma, for CBI. By the Court:
The only question raised in this petition is regarding territorial jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigation of an offence, which had taken place at Delhi.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Investigating Agency has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate an offence, which took place outside their territorial jurisdiction. In the present matter while lodging the FIR, it was clearly indicated that occurrence took place at Delhi and further indicate the distance therein from the place of police station. Ignoring the aforesaid, the investigation in the matter pursuant to the FIR started. The only reason seems to be that petitioner was posted at Sikar at the time when the FIR was lodged but the place of working has no relevance to address the issue of territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as aforesaid is to be decided based on place of occurrence. In view of the aforesaid, the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside. A reference of Section 4 of Prevention of Corruption has been given to show that such a case can be tried by the Special Judge. As per the Section 4(2) the Special Judge can try a case, which was committed within its territorial jurisdiction. Since, the offence took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Special Judge, hence even the trial pursuant to the investigation would not be possible. Looking to the aforesaid also, the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The side opposite submits that as to whether the territorial jurisdiction exists with the Investigating Agency is an issue, which can be looked into while investigating the matter and if ultimately, it is found that offence took place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency, then it can be forwarded to the police station having territorial jurisdiction. An affidavit has been filed today to show that if a case is made out to the effect that CBI, Jaipur has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter, the Final Report under Section 173 will be filed in the Court of competent jurisdiction and accordingly, complete file of the case will be transferred. A reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728 has been given. It is submitted that FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of police to investigate the matter. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, quashing of FIR on that ground is improper more so when the police officer is competent to investigate any cognizable offence, however, the Investigating Officer can forward the case to the police station having territorial jurisdiction, if he come to the conclusion that crime was committed beyond his territorial jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, the prayer is to dismiss the miscellaneous petition.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration on the issues.
Perusal of the FIR shows that place of occurrence is shown to be at Delhi, however, the FIR has been lodged followed by initiation of investigation by CBI, Jaipur. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Sikar. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct to the extent that there is a clear indication regarding place of occurrence, the FIR should be lodged within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station where it can be investigated and tried. The facts, however, remain that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Supra), this Court cannot quash the FIR on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of Investigating Agency. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgments are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
8.In our view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted. The limited question is whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence. From the discussion made by the learned Judge, it appears that learned Judge has considered the provisions applicable for criminal trial. The High Court arrived at the conclusion by appreciating the allegation made by the parties that the S.H.O., Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain and investigate the F.I.R. lodged by the appellant because the alleged dowry items were entrusted to the respondent at Patiala and that the alleged cause of action for the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C. arose at Patiala. In our view, the findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because :
(1) The S.H.O. has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged.
(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial jurisdiction.
(3) After investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
9. This would be clear from the following discussion. Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the Police Officer to investigate any cognizable offence. It reads as under :
"156. Police Officer's power to investigate cognizable case : -
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) 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 under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."
10. It is true that 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 F.I.R. 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 FIR and/or investigate it.
11. Chapter XIII of the Code provides for "Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be stated that under the said Chapter there are various provisions which empower the Court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. This would be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. For our purpose, it would be suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under :-
"177, Ordinary place of inquiry and trial - Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial. - (a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that Section 177 provides for `ordinary' place of inquiry or 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 S.H.O. does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.
13. This Court in the State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] SCR 52, dealt with a similar contention wherein the High Court had held that the statutory powers of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV were not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and hence the investigation was without jurisdiction. Reversing the said finding, it was held thus :-
"The powers of investigation into cognizable offences are contained in Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 154 which is in that Chapter deals with information in cognizable offences and Section 156 with investigation into such offences and under these sections the police has statutory right to investigate into the circumstances of any alleged cognizable offence without authority from a Magistrate and this statutory power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered with by the exercise of power under Section 439 or under the inherent power of the Court under Section 561A of Criminal Procedure Code. As to the powers of the Judiciary in regard to statutory right of the police to investigate, the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, (1944) L.R. 71 I .A. 203, 212 observed as follows :-
"The functions of the judiciary and the police arc complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then. It has sometimes been thought that Section 561A has given increased powers to the Court which it did not posses before that Section was enacted. But this is not so, the section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the Court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted as their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the Court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent powers had survived the passing of that Act."
With this interpretation, which has been put on the statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers of the Court, we are in accord. The High Court was in error therefore in interfering with the powers of the police in investigating into the offence which was alleged in the information sent to the Officer-in-charge of the police station."
14.Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. (Re: State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, [1982] 1 SCC 561.) It is also settled by a long course of decision of this Court that for the purpose of exercising Us power under Section 482, Cr. P,C. to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.
If the para nos. 8 to 14 of the aforesaid judgment are taken note of, then position becomes clear. Without giving my opinion as to whether the FIR and investigation can be made within the territorial jurisdiction of CBI, Jaipur, I am of the view that let the investigation be proceeded, however, if on the investigation, it comes that offences was committed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency then the course as given by the Supreme Court in the case of Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Supra) would be exhausted. Since, I am not commenting on the issue of territorial jurisdiction while making investigation, the respondents will taken note of the aforesaid and if it is found that offence had not taken place within their territorial jurisdiction, then necessary course would be adopted, as otherwise referred to above. It is also necessary to clarify that if the CBI, Jaipur finds that they had no territorial jurisdiction, then obviously the question of its trial by the Court at Jaipur will no arise. The argument in reference to the Annex.1 need not to be dealt with accordingly.
With the aforesaid observations, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.
(M.N. BHANDARI),J.
Preety Item NO.S-4