Judgement Briefs

Criminal Procedure Code

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat

(2008) 8 SCC 300

Citation
(2008) 8 SCC 300
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
13 August 2008
Bench
S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph JJ.

Facts

  • A criminal case concerning alleged cheating in relation to educational admissions was registered in Vadodara.
  • Some accused persons and connected institutions were located outside the territorial limits of that police station.
  • An objection was raised that the Vadodara police had no jurisdiction to investigate.
  • The Gujarat High Court ordered transfer of the investigation to another police station said to possess proper territorial jurisdiction.
  • The order was influenced partly by submissions or consent made before the High Court.
  • The Supreme Court considered whether territorial jurisdiction should have been conclusively decided and the investigation transferred at such an early stage. ( )

Issue

  • Whether police can register and begin investigating a cognizable offence when territorial jurisdiction is uncertain.
  • Whether a High Court should transfer an investigation before the relevant jurisdictional facts have emerged.

Rule

  • Section 156(1) CrPC authorises the officer in charge of a police station to investigate a cognizable case that a court having jurisdiction over that local area could inquire into or try.
  • Territorial jurisdiction depends not only on where the FIR is lodged but also on Sections 177 to 181 CrPC.
  • A criminal case may be investigated or tried at more than one place where:
  • parts of the offence occurred in different areas;
  • the consequence occurred elsewhere;
  • the offence was continuing;
  • several acts formed one transaction; or
  • property was received or retained in another jurisdiction.
  • At the initial stage, all jurisdictional facts may not yet be known.
  • A police officer should not refuse to record or examine cognizable information merely because part of the occurrence appears to be outside the area.
  • If investigation later shows that another police station alone has jurisdiction, the case may be transferred through the proper administrative process.
  • Courts should not interfere prematurely unless the lack of jurisdiction is clear and indisputable.
  • Sections 173, 175 and 178–184 BNSS now contain the corresponding framework.

Application

  • The Supreme Court observed that the alleged offence involved communications, payments, admissions and institutions operating across different places.
  • Before investigation, it was impossible to state conclusively where every material act or consequence had occurred.
  • The location of the accused or institution was not by itself decisive.
  • Relevant jurisdiction could arise where:
  • representations were made;
  • money was delivered;
  • deception operated;
  • wrongful loss occurred; or
  • part of the common transaction took place.
  • These matters could be discovered only by collecting evidence.
  • By transferring the case at the threshold, the High Court treated territorial jurisdiction as a simple and already established fact.
  • The Supreme Court found that approach premature.
  • The parties’ consent could not create or remove statutory police jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdiction in a criminal case must follow the Code and the facts, not an agreement between litigants.
  • The investigating officer was therefore entitled to make preliminary and substantive inquiries to identify the location and nature of the alleged acts.
  • If the investigation established that no part of the offence had any connection with Vadodara, the case could then be forwarded to the competent station.
  • This method avoids two dangers:
  • cognizable offences going uninvestigated because each police station refuses responsibility; and
  • courts deciding disputed facts before evidence is collected.
  • Judicial review remains available if the police act mala fide or continue despite a clearly established absence of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court disapproved the premature transfer of investigation.
  • It held that territorial competence depends on the facts revealed during investigation and on the combined operation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Code.
  • Police may investigate initially even where territorial jurisdiction is uncertain.
  • The case is authority for the rule that territorial objections should ordinarily not prevent registration and initial investigation of a cognizable offence. ( )