Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2534 (ALL)

RAVINDRA v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-08-19

AMAR SARAN, SURENDRA SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. This writ petition has been filed for the relief that the investigation of Case Crime No. 151 of 2010, under Section 364 I.P.C registered at Police Station Kandhala, district Muzaffar Nagar be transferred to District Rampur. 2. The petitioner is an accused. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR lodged by Smt. Bala Devi alias Rajbala alleged that the abductee Jaiveer had telephoned her from his mobile and at that time, he was at Rampur alongwith accused persons, which included the petitioner, Ravindra, Mahipal, Rajendra and Dharmendra. After that she could not contact her husband on his mobile and she suspected that her husband has been done to death by the aforesaid four persons. It was further argued that as the informant had mentioned that she has received the telephone calls when her husband was at Rampur, hence FIR at case crime No. 151 of 2001 could not have been registered at P.S. Kandhla, district Muzaffarnagar. 3. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to draw our attention to Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C, wherein it is provided that any Officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which is 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. 4. He also drew our attention to Section 177 Cr.P.C which provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 5. It may be noted that the embargo on territorial jurisdiction is removed by Section 156(2) Cr.P.C which provides that no investigation 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. Also from mere mention in the FIR that when the abductee Jaiveer was returning to Muzaffarnagar from Lakhimpur after attending the Court, his wife Smt. Bala Devi alias Rajbala had spoken to him when he was passing through Rampur will not limit the jurisdiction to investigate the case only to police station at Rampur . Also from mere mention in the FIR that when the abductee Jaiveer was returning to Muzaffarnagar from Lakhimpur after attending the Court, his wife Smt. Bala Devi alias Rajbala had spoken to him when he was passing through Rampur will not limit the jurisdiction to investigate the case only to police station at Rampur . In this connection, Section 178 Cr.P.C clearly provides that when it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or 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. 6. On this basis, the Investigating Officer of any local areas between Lakhimpur and Muzaffarnagar including Rampur are empowered to investigate the offence. 7. In Satvinder Kaur v. State Govt. NCT Delhi, AIR 1999 SC 3596 , it has been held that no FIR can be quashed on the ground that the police did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence nor the police officer can refuse to record an FIR or investigate it for want of territorial jurisdiction. Further more, in CBI another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another, 1997 Cri. LJ 63, it has been clearly laid down that the accused has no say in the matter as to which agency will investigate the case. In view of these reasons, this writ petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. —————