RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 722

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH

Case summary

RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

' [2009) 15 (ADDL. ) S. C. R. 722 I .. _ RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. ... . \. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. (CrimiRal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009) NOVEMBER 06, 2009 . , [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ. ] ~ Code of c;riminal Procedure, 1973: s. 156(3). - Investigating agency cannot decide not to investigate a -~ complaint forwarded to it under s. 156(3) on the ground that offence complained of was allegedly committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether in regard to the order passed under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. , the police authorities . , empowered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 156 can unilaterally decide not to conduct an investigation on the ~ ground that they had no territorial jurisdiction to do so. " _.! Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1.

A 'police officer in charge of a police station can, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable offence which a Court having jurisdiction over such police station can inquire into or try under Chapter Ill of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of Sect. ion 156 ensures that once an investigation is commenced under Sub-section (1 ), the same is not interrupted on the ground that the police officer was not empowered under the Section to investigate. It is in the nature ofa ''savings clause" in respect of investigations i undertaken in respect of cognizable offences. In addition I .... to the powers vested· in a Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr. P. C. to order an investigation under Subsection (1) of section 202 Cr. P. C.

, Sub-section (3) of ') that the appellant had filed his application for loan with the Head Office of the Bank at Ahmedabad and that the processing and the sanction of the loan was also done in Ahmedabad which clearly indicates that the major part of the cause of action for the complaints arose within the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It was not, therefore, desirable on the part of the Investigating Agency to make an observation that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the investigation, which was required to be transferred to the Police Station having jurisdiction to do so. 24. On the materials before him the learned Magistrate was fully justified in rejecting the Final Report submitted by the Economic Offences Wing, State CID (Crime) and to order a fresh investigation into the allegations made on behalf of the Bank. The Hig. h Court, therefore, did not commit any error in upholding the views expressed by the Trial Court.

As mentioned hereinbefore, . •· Section 181(4) Cr. P. C. deals with the Court's powers to inquire or try an offence of criminal misappropriation or of a criminal breach of trust i. f the same has been committed or any part of the property, which is the subject of the offence, is received or -I retained within the local jurisdiction of the said Court. .... j 25. The various decisions cited by Mr. Syed, and in particular the decision in Satvinder Kaur's case (supra) provide -an insight into the views held by the Supreme Court on the accepted position that the Investigating Officer was entitled to f I transfer an investigation to a Police Station having jurisdiction B: to conduct the same. The said question is not in issue before us and as indicated hereinbefore, we are only required to consider whether the Investigating Officer in respect of an investigation -4 undertaken under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C.

can file a report stating that he had no jurisdiction to investigate into the complaint as the entire cause of action had arisen outside his jurisdiction despite there being material available to the contrary. The answer, in our view, is in the negative and we are of the firm view that the powers vested in the Investigating Authorities, under ' .... Sections 156(1) Cr. P. C. , did not restrict the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to investigate into a complaint even if it did not have territorial jurisdiction to do so. Unlike as in other cases, ... it was for the Court to decide whether it had jurisdiction to " ~ entertain the complaint as and when the entire facts were placed before it. 26. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain the appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. D. G. Appeal dismissed.