Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 853 (RAJ)

ABDUL RAHEEM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2018-03-23

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER : Deepak Maheshwari, J. Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General-cum-Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to forward the material collected during investigation of FIR No. 236/2017 P.S. Keshavraipatan to the police station having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Direction has also been sought for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4 for non-compliance of the statutory provisions while giving approval to submit the negative final report before the Court concerned instead of sending the matter to the concerned police station having territorial jurisdiction. 3. Briefly stated, the facts revealed from the writ petition and the documents annexed are that FIR No. 236/2017 was filed by the complainant-petitioner at police station Keshavraipatan for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC in which final (negative report) was submitted by SHO, P.S. Keshavraipatan before the Court on the ground that the offence was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. An FR (gair ilaka) was submitted, though it was concluded by Investigating Officer that the offence under Section 307 IPC has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of police station railway colony, Kota. This was done under the approval of Superintendent of Police, Bundi vide letter dated 30.06.2017. Against the said FR, complainant preferred a protest petition before the Court of ACJM. Vide order dated 01.09.2017 the case diary was returned back to SHO, P.S. Keshoraipatan with the direction to get the investigation conducted by the officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Again FR (negative report) came to be filed before the Court on 10.10.2017. This time also direction was issued by Superintendent of Police, Bundi on 26.09.2017 to SHO, P.S. Keshoraipatan to submit FR (gair ilaka). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Rule 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 & 6.8 of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the action taken by Superintendent of Police, Bundi was not justified. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 and Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009). 5. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 and Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009). 5. In view of above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bundi was not proper and the directions sought by way of filing this writ petition may kindly be issued. 6. Per contra, learned AAG has stated that in cases wherein the police station is lacking territorial jurisdiction, the FR (negative report) is submitted before the Court concerned on this ground alone. This is established practice being followed through out the State of Rajasthan. He has referred to the Ruls 5.5(1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 in this regard. Learned AAG submits that after the directions having been sought from the Court having jurisdiction, further investigation is conducted by the police station having territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, letter dated 22.03.2018 issued by Additional Director General, police station, CID Crime Branch has also been referred. 7. In my view Rule 5.5(1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 is not applicable in this case. In fact, this Rule is applicable to the FIR and not to investigation. The issue for consideration before this Court is about the competence of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter, if the occurrence has taken place out of the territorial jurisdiction of concerned police station. 8. Rule 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 & 6.8 of the Rules of 1965 governed this issue. These Rules are as under:- "6.4 Where offence appears to have occurred in other police station; (1) If a police officer after registering a case and commencing an investigating discovers that the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of another police station he shall atonce send information to the officer incharge of such police station. 6.5 Disputes as to jurisdiction:- Should the officer who is thus summoned to the spot dispute the jurisdiction, both officers shall jointly carry on the investigation under the orders of the senior officer and neither shall leave until the question of jurisdiction has been settled and acknowledged. The case record shall be kept at the police station where the information was first received until the question of jurisdiction has been decided. 6.7. The case record shall be kept at the police station where the information was first received until the question of jurisdiction has been decided. 6.7. Cancellation of a case in one police station and registration in another:- When a case as transferred from one police station to another, the offence registered in the original police station shall be cancelled by the Superintendent and a first information report shall be submitted from the police station in the jurisdiction of which the case occurred. 6.8. Cases which may be lawfully investigated in more local areas then one. (1) If the case is one which the officer incharge of the police station may lawfully investigate, but which may also be lawfully and more successfully investigated in another police station, such officer while continuing his investigation, shall refer the matter to the Superintendent who shall transfer the case or not as he sees fit." 9. These Rules clearly indicate that if the offence is found to have been committed in the jurisdiction of another police station, the information about the offence will be given to the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station. The Rules do not suggest in any way that FR (Negative Report) will be submitted on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. 10. While discussing the provisions of Section 156 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in Satvinder Kaur's case :- "It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub0section (1) to the extent that the Officer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing 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. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170. Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, forward the accused under custody to a magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. Further, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station, then F.I.R. can be forwarded to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which crime is committed. But this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it." 11. The same view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar's case :- "25. The various decisions cited by Mr. Syed, and in particular the decision in Satvinder Kaur's case provide an insight into the views held by the Supreme Court on the accepted position that the Investigating Officer was entitled to transfer an investigation to a Police Station having jurisdiction 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 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." 12. 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." 12. Having considered the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above referred cases and going through the relevant documents available on record, this Court is of the view that the step of filing final report (negative report) by SHO, P.S. Keshoraipatan after approval of Superintendent of Police, Bundi was not justified. It is pertinent to note that in this matter in hand Investigating Officer, after conducting investigation, was satisfied that the offence u/S 307 IPC has taken place, but not in the territorial jurisdiction of the police station Keshavraipatan. The offence was stated to have taken place in the jurisdiction of P.S. railway colony, Kota. As soon as the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the offence has taken place regarding cognizable offence, the FIR ought to have been forwarded to the police station having territorial jurisdiction for necessary further action. There was no justification to file negative final report only on the ground that the offence has not taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of police station Keshavraipatan. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the above referred matters that FR (negative report) cannot be submitted on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction. At the first available occasion, the concerned police station where the FIR was lodged, should have forwarded it to the police station having territorial jurisdiction. 13. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed to the effect that the FIR No. 236/2017, P.S. Keshavraipatan be forthwith forwarded to the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the matter and to conclude the investigating at the earliest within a period of two months from today, as the matter is already pending for more than a year. 14. So far as the prayer made regarding initiating proceedings against respondent No.4 is concerned, it is left open on the discretion of the concerned authorities to take necessary step as per the Rules and procedure. It is further directed to the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Rajasthan and DGP, Rajasthan to issue direction to all the concerned to ensure compliance of the Police Rules of 1965 and the judicial pronouncements of Satvinder Kaur and Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar . 15. The writ petition stands disposed off accordingly.