Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1418 (GAU)

Ramesh Kumar Jain v. State of Assam

2015-11-16

PARAN KUMAR PHUKAN

body2015
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Paran Kumar Phukan, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the petitioners for setting aside and quashing of the FIR dated 05.07.13 on the basis of which Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 693/13 under Section 498 (A) of the IPC has been registered. 2. The informant, Swati Jain, wife of petitioner No. 3, Sri. Vikash Jain lodged an FIR before Paltan Bazar Police Station alleging, therein, that her marriage with petitioner No. 3 was solemnised on 12.06.12 from Puri and after the marriage, she started living in the house of her husband at Kolkata with her in-laws petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Soon after the marriage, acrimony had started brewing in the marital relationship between her and her husband. 3. It has also been alleged that her husband and in-laws tortured her both mentally and physically demanding dowry from her and she was demoralised to such an extent that she tried to end her life by consuming “Lyzol”. But her life was saved due to timely treatment provided to her. After the incident, she started living with her husband in a separate establishment. But the torture on her continued unabated which compelled her to come back to her parental house at Guwahati. 4. On receipt of the FIR Paitan Bazar Police Station registered a Case being Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 693/13 under Section 498 (A) IPC and started investigating the matter. The Investigating Officer even visited Kolkata to gather evidence. 5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied the petitioners preferred this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the FIR and the investigation on the ground that the Paltan Bazar Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case. The petitioners denied that they tortured the informant and pleaded that since the occurrence allegedly took place at Kolkata, the police at Paltan Bazar Police Station has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by referring to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted that since no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Guwahati, the Paltan Bazar Police Station which falls under the jurisdiction of Guwahati Court should not have registered the FIR and conduct investigation. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners by referring to Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted that since no offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Guwahati, the Paltan Bazar Police Station which falls under the jurisdiction of Guwahati Court should not have registered the FIR and conduct investigation. It is submitted that as per provisions of Section 177 Cr.P.C., every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 7. It was strenuously submitted that since no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Guwahati, Paitan Bazar Police Station also had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. 8. My attention has also been invited to the provisions of Section 156 (1) of the Cr.P.C. which reads thus:- "Any officer in charge of a police station may without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognisable case which 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.” 9. It is well settled proposition of law that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the F.I.R., prima-facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognisable offences. 10. It is also well settled that the officer-in-charge under Section 156 Cr.P.C., has the power to investigate any cognisable case for which FIR is lodged and if after investigation is over, the officer-in-charge or the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C., and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of the offence. 11. 156(2) mandates that no proceeding 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 to investigate. 12. In the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. 11. 156(2) mandates that no proceeding 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 to investigate. 12. In the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Anr. reported in AIR 1999 (1) SCC 3596 observed as follows:- “Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed grave error in accepting, the contention of the respondent that Investigating 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 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 scrutinised for arriving at a conclusion that police station officer of 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 inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that S.H.O., Police Station Paschim Vihar. New Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, illegal and 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 No. 2 on the ground of want of territorial jurisdiction.” 13. In the present case it has been alleged by the informant that she was tortured by the petitioners demanding dowry from her which compelled her to take “Lyzol” to end her life. Because of the torture perpetrated on her, it was not possible for her to stay in her matrimonial house and she had to take shelter in the house of her parents at Guwahati. Because of the torture perpetrated on her, it was not possible for her to stay in her matrimonial house and she had to take shelter in the house of her parents at Guwahati. Although, there is no allegations in the FIR that she was tortured in Guwahati, but she appears to have made statement before the I.O. that in her parental house also, telephonically they demanded money and hurled abuses at her and threatened her and it cannot be said at this stage that the offence is not a continuing one. That apart, the embargo of Section 156(2) that no proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to investigate comes into play and exactly the similar situation has arisen in this case. 14. In view of my discussion above and the settled position of law, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is not found to be maintainable. The FIR filed by the informant leading to registration of Paltan Bazar P.S. Case No. 693/13 cannot be quashed. 15. The petition is accordingly dismissed.