Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 37 (KAR)

B. S. Sundaresh v. State of Karnataka

2012-01-12

S.ABDUL NAZEER

body2012
Judgment :- 1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011, whereby the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sanjayanagar police Station, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to file the complaint in the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. 2. The petitioner contends that one N.J.Nagaraju S/o Jayaramaiah, residing at No.41, Telecom Employees Layout, Bhogadi, Mysore had agreed to sell immovable property bearing Sy.No.138/C measuring 1 acre 8 guntas situated at Kadugodi village, Channasandra Road, Bangalore in his favour as also in favour of Sukanya Murthy and her brother Sridhar and received a sum of Rs.2.00 crores from them towards the sale consideration. Since the price of the land has increased, he demanded additional amount for sale of the said property. Therefore, the petitioner and the other agreement, holders requested him to refund the advance amount. In response to their request, N.J.Nagaraju issued two cheques both dated 17.8.2011 for Rs.1.28 Crores and Rs.20 lakhs respectively in favour of the petitioner. Similarly, he has issued cheques in favour of the other agreement holders. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonored with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Therefore, they have initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Competent Court at Bangalore. Even though summons was served on N.J.Nagaraju, he has not entered appearance in the said cases. Therefore, the Court issued non-bailable warrant against him. It is further contended that on enquiry, petitioner came to know that N.J.Nagaraju was intentionally avoiding to appear before the Court. On 28.6.2011, he filed a complaint before the 4th respondent informing him the commission of cognizable offence by N.J.Nagaraju. On receipt of the said complaint, the 4th respondent has issued the endorsement referred to above. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that in the complaint, the petitioner has furnished the place of residence of N.J.Nagaraju. It is further contended that the 4th respondent cannot refuse to receive the complaint on the ground that he has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. He has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned endorsement. 5. He has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction. 4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents has sought to justify the impugned endorsement. 5. Section 154(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for recording the first information report by the Police relating to commission of cognizable offence. The information given to a Police Officer and reduced to writing as required by this Section is known as first information. The expression ‘information’ means something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or atleast information of a crime given to the Police. The principal object of the FIR from the point of view of the informant is to set the criminal law in motion and from the point of view from the investigating authority is to obtain information about the alleged criminal activity so as to be able to take suitable steps to trace and bring to book the guilty. The condition, which is sine qua non for recording a FIR under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure is that there must be an information and that information must disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Where an information regarding cognizable offence is lodged at the Police Station, the officer in-charge is obliged to receive and record the same as per Sections 154(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Chapter XXVII of the Karnataka Police Manual, 1998 (Volume-II), provides for the procedure for registration of the crime committed within the jurisdiction of other Police Stations. Orders 1205, 1206 and 1207 of Chapter XXVII would clearly indicate that if a crime is committed within the jurisdiction of another Police Station within the State is reported to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, the Station House Officer has to record the information in the Station House Diary and at once proceed to the spot and take up investigation and continue it till relieved by the Police having jurisdiction. Simultaneously, action will have to be taken to send immediate intimation to the Police having jurisdiction over the place and when the investigation is taken over by the latter, the FIR should be transferred. Simultaneously, action will have to be taken to send immediate intimation to the Police having jurisdiction over the place and when the investigation is taken over by the latter, the FIR should be transferred. Orders 1205, 1206 and 1207 of Chapter XXVII, which are relevant for the purpose of this case are as under: “1205: If a crime committed in the jurisdiction of another Police Station within the State is reported to the Station House Officer of a Police Station, a First Information Report should be issued and its substance entered in the Station House Diary. 1206: If the place of occurrence is near and is easily accessible from the Station House, the Station House Officer will at once proceed to the spot, take up investigation and continue it till relieved by the police having jurisdiction. Simultaneously, action will be taken to send immediate intimation to the police having jurisdiction over the place. When the investigation is taken over by the latter, the First Information Report should be transferred. 1207: If the place of occurrence is far off, immediate intimation should be sent to the police having jurisdiction over the place by the quickest possible means and the First Information Report transferred to them simultaneously. If any of the persons, who are reasonably believed to have taken part in the offence, are found in the limits of the station where the offence is reported and if the offence alleged against them is of a serious nature and there is reasonable apprehension that they will abscond unless immediately taken into custody, they should be arrested and produced before the Court having jurisdiction, intimation of their arrest being promptly sent to the Police Station within the jurisdiction of which the offence occurred.” 7. It is well settled that the Police cannot refuse to record the complaint on the ground that the concerned police station has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. In case he has no jurisdiction over the place of crime, he has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction. The non-registration of FIR by the Police Officer is dereliction of statutory duty enjoined upon him. In case he has no jurisdiction over the place of crime, he has to record the information and forward the same to the police station having jurisdiction. The non-registration of FIR by the Police Officer is dereliction of statutory duty enjoined upon him. The Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh/Vs./Punati Ramulu and others- AIR 1993 SC 2644 was considering a case where the police constable at the police station refused to record the complaint presented by PW1 on the ground that the police station have no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It has been held as under: “It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have prevented the constable from recording the information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed”. 8. It is clear from the materials on record that the petitioner has lodged a complaint (Annexure- A) before the 4th respondent. In the complaint, petitioner has informed the police about the commission of cognizable offences. The 4th respondent has failed to register the complaint on the ground that the said police station has no territorial jurisdiction over the place of the crime, which is erroneous and unsustainable in law. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011 issued by the 4th respondent is hereby quashed. The 4th respondent is directed to receive and record the information and proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. No Costs.