Judgement explaining jurisdiction Good case explaining jurisdiction of courts and investigating officers

POWERS OF INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES


State of Orissa vs Sharat Chandra Sahu

Held

Subsection (4) of Section 155 creates a legal fiction and provides that although a case may comprise of several offences of which some are cognizable and others are not, it would not be open to the police to investigate the cognizable offences only and omit the non-cognizable offences. Since the whole case (comprising cognizable and non-cognizable offences) is to be treated as cognizable, the police had no option but to investigate the whole of the case and to submit a charge sheet in respect of all the offences, cognizable or non-cognizable both, provided it is found by the police during investigation that the offences appear, prima facie, to have been committed.

The statutory provision is specific, precise and clear and there is no ambiguity in the language employed in sub-section (4). It is apparent that if the facts reported to the Police disclose both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the Police would be acting within the scope of its authority in investigating both the offences as the legal fiction enacted is sub-section (4) provides that even a non-cognizable case shall, in that situation, be treated as cognizable.

This Court in Pravin Chandra Mody V.State of A.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1185) has held that while investigating a cognizable offence and presenting a charge-sheet for it, the Police are not debarred from investigating any non-cognizable offence arising of the same facts and including them in the charge-sheet.
_______________
*(1996) 6SCC 435






Territorial Jurisdiction & Power of Investigation


Satvinder Kaur vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)*

Facts

The appellant was married with respondent at Delhi on 09.12.1990. A daughter was born on 19.12.1991. The appellant was thrown out of matrimonial home in Patiala on 19.01.1992 and at that time she had only wearing apparel. Complaint was lodged by her at Kotwali P.S., Patiala on the same day making various allegations of torture and dowry demand against her husband and his family members. Thereafter she came to live with her parents at Delhi. Threats by her husband continued here also. A complaint was lodged against her husband in the Women’s Cell, Delhi on 30.04.1992. After preliminary investigations, the impugned F.I.R. under sections 406 and 498 IPC was registered at P.S. Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, on 23.01.1993 for the alleged occurrence at Patiala. Thereafter, the respondent filed petition under section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the F.I.R. in Delhi High Court. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the SHO P.S. Paschim Vihar 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 that the alleged caused of action for the offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code arose at Patiala.

Held

The findings given by the High Court are on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because.

(1) The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 Cr.PC to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged.

(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 Cr.PC 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 FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 Cr.PC and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizable of the offence. (Para 8)

It is true territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 156 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 enquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) of Section 156 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 investigations required to be submitted as provided under Section 168, 169 and 1’’ 0. 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 cognizable of the offence upon a Police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the investigation 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 the 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. (emphasis supplied).

A reading of Sections 177 and 178 Cr.PC would make it clear that Section 177 provides for “Ordinary” place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was committed party in one local area and parity in another and where it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired 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 the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.

The legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the FIR, prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the court does not normally stop the investigation, form to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the Police to investigate into cognizable offences. It is also settled by a long course of decisions of the Supreme Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.PC 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 perse; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.

Hence in the present case, the High Court committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that the investigating officer has no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the 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 investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the Police Station Officer of a particular Police Station would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case, it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) Cr.PC, when it is uncertain in which of the several local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that the 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 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.

_________________
*(1999) 8 SCC 728