Skip to main content

IO lacking territorial jurisdiction is no ground to interfere

In Satish Dharmu Rathod v. The State of Maharashtra, the complainant in her FIR lodged at the Cantonment Police Station on 9.10.2015 had alleged that while cohabitation at matrimonial home, she was subjected to maltreatment and harassment by the applicant on account of demand of money as well as domestic cause.

Pursuant to the FIR, setting the criminal law in motion and the IO proceeded to record the statement of witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case. Meanwhile, the applicants approached the High Court praying to quash and set aside the impugned FIR, filed by the complainant contending that the Cantonment Police Station, Aurangabad had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate into the crime as no part of crime was shown committed within its territorial limits  as the alleged offences were shown to be committed at Kandhar and Mumbai.

The Court found no force in the argument stating that the FIR deserved to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating officer. The Court mentioned Sections 154 and 156 CrPC and explained that these provisions grant a statutory right to the police to investigate into the circumstances of any cognizable offence without authority from the Magistrate and this right of police to investigate couldn’t be interfered in exercise of powers under Section 482 of CrPC. The Court further cited Satvinder Kaur v. Sate (Government of NCT Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728, in which the Supreme Court had observed that 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 the crime is committed and said that this would not mean that the police officer can refuse to record the FIR just because it requires investigation.

The Court held that at that particular stage, when investigation is in progress, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed and set aside on the alleged ground that, as no part of offence is committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Police Station where it is filed. The Division Bench dismissed the application saying that it had no authority to interfere in the investigation.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more