NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 1102

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.pdf

Judgment text

[2008] 7 S. C. R. 1102 NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 839 of 2008) MAY 8, 2008 (S. B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 156 and 157 - Investigation - Transfer of - FIR filed at Vadodara Police Station - High Court transferring the investigation to Waghodia Police Station where institution situated against which FIR filed - Order passed just after four days of filing FIR - Correctness of - Held: FIR prima facie shows that part of cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police Station - At such an early stage, investigation could not be directed 0 to be transferred when Waghodia Police Station where ' institution situated, is within jurisdiction of Vadodara - Thus, a fit case to exercise jurisdiction ul Article 136 - Order of High Court as also charge sheet filed by Waghodia Police Station set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. On 23. 12.

2006, the appellant lodged FIR before the Police Station, Vadodara City, under the Penal Code against the respondents for canceling the admissions of first informant's child in their institution after collecting a huge amount. The Vadodara Police initiated investigation. '( On 26. 12. 2006 applications were filed before High Court for transfer of investigations. However, the informant was not impleaded as a party and no notices were issued. On 28. 12. 2006, High Court transferred the investigation to another police station within whose jurisdiction the institution was situated. Hence, the present appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. 1 The power of the court to interfere with an . - '. be set aside, the investigation must be held to have been carried out without any jurisdiction. The concern is not with the quality of the investigation but the effect of the order passed by the High Court.

It is not known as to whether proper investigation, has in fact been considered at by the court or not. [Para 9) [1109-D,E,F] 1. 4 The FIR prima facie shows that a part of cause of jurisdiction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police Station. It cannot be understood as to . 4 how at such an early stage, the investigation should have been directed to be transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia Police Station where the 'institution' in question is situated is within the jurisdiction of Vadodara (District) and is, therefore, not a case where the accused would have been even otherwise gravely prejudiced in joining investigation. Therefore, it is not a case where there should be refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The ....

concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law. Any document collected as also the statements of any witnesses recorded by the officer incharge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may be sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station. [Paras 10, 11) [1109-G, 1110-A,B,C] Satvindver Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 1999 (8) SCC 728; Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha 'f (2007) 5 sec 786 - referred to. CRIMINAL ALPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Order dated 28. 12. 2006 of the High Court of Gujrat Ahmedabad in Criminal Application No. 2272 of 2006. WITH Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2008. c: NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF 1105 - - In Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : 1999 (8) sec '128 this Court noticing various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure opined: "12.

A reading of the aforesaid sections 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 partly in one local area and partly 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. " It was furthermore held : "15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that the.

investiga~:ng 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 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) 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 enquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such 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 arid 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. " 7. Yet again in Asif Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha : (2007) 5SCC 786 this Court clearly held :y "32. No such explicit prayer was made by the respondents in their writ petition, although a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of West Bengal to transfer Case No. 381 to the State of U. P. , had been made. The question of the State of West Bengal's having a legal duty in that behalf did not arise.

Only in the )( event an investigating officer, having regard to the provisions contained in Sections 154, 162, 177 and 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding ' that he alleged crime was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could forward the first information report to the police having jurisdiction in the matter. ' 33. Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should not J have issued such a direction. Assuming, however, that the High Court could mould the relief, in our opinion, it was not 8 a case where on the face of the allegations made in the complaint petition, the same could be said to be mala fide. A major part of the cause of action might have arisen in the State of U. P. , but the same by itself would not mean that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever. " 8. Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Huzefa Ahmed, appearing for the respondent No.

2 in each of the appeals, however, brought to our notice that charge-sheet has already been submitted. It was contended that proper investigation has been carried out in the matter and even the >- accused respondent had been taken into custody and, thus, this Court, m a situation of this nature, should no~ exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 9. Investigation has been carried out by the officer incharge of Police Station Waghodia only pursuant to the order of the High Court. If the order of the High Court is to be set aside, the investigation must be held to have been carried out without any jurisdiction. We are not, herein concerned with the quality of the investigation but the effect of the order passed by the High Court. We do not know as to whether proper investigation as contended, has in fact been considered at by the court or not. 10. The first information report was lodged on 23rd December, 2006.

The High Court appears to have been approached within a few days, namely 26th December, 2006. The impugned order has been passed on 28th December, 2006. The first information report prima facie shows that a part of cause of jurisdiction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police Station. We fail to understand as to how at such an early stage, the investigation should have been directed to be transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia Police Station where the 'institution' in question is situated is within the jurisdiction of Vadodara (District) and is, therefore, not a case where the accused would have been even otherwise gravely prejudiced in joining investigation. 11. We, therefore. are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside.

The concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law. Any document collected as also the statements of any witnesses recorded by the officer in-charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may be sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station. 12. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned observations and directions. •' N. J. Appeals allowed