While clearing the air on the legal position on a very significant issue, the Delhi High Court has in a most noteworthy judgment titled Jolly Singh vs The State in W.P.(CRL.) 137/2021 and cited in 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1157 that was finally pronounced on December 7, 2022 has minced just no words to make it indubitably clear that once a Magistrate passes an order under Section 156(3) CrPC directing the registration of FIR on a complaint, it is not open for the police to raise an objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. While quashing an order passed by an Additional Commissioner of Police whereby the investigation in an FIR alleging abduction was transferred to from Delhi’s Model Town police station to Uttar Pradesh’s Greater Noida, Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh said that, “Once the order has been passed by the Magistrate directing investigation, it is not open to the police to raise objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. In fact, in the present case, the Additional Commissioner of Police has transferred investigation from Delhi to Greater Noida, UP. This is tantamount to reviewing the order of MM which only a superior court has the authority to do.”
At the very outset, this robust, rational, recent and remarkable judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasmeet Singh of Delhi High Court sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “This is a petition filed seeking cancellation of the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) dated 11.11.2020, whereby the investigation in the FIR No. 105/2019 was transferred to PS Surajpur, Greater Noida, U.P.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner made a complaint to PS Model Town against the accused persons vide Complaint No. LC-1844 dated 05.12.2018. As per the complaint, it is stated that the accused persons abducted the petitioner and took him to Noida for finalizing an import deal where there was extortion and he was also robbed of Rs. 50,00,000. It is further stated that he was illegally detained at Surajpur and was also coerced to issue cheques worth Rs. 5.75 crores. When no action was taken on his complaint, the petitioner moved an application under section 153 Cr.PC before the concerned court at Rohini.”
Further, the Bench states in para 3 that, “The Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi on 11.03.2019 passed an order stating “5. From the allegations and material available on record, clearly cognizable offence is made out and matter requires investigation. Accordingly, SHO concerned is directed to register an FIR in the present matter against the wrong doers in appropriate sections of law, without being influenced by the section mentioned in the complaint.” Pursuant to the said order, the FIR was registered at PS Model Town, Delhi.”
Furthermore, the Bench then hastens to add in para 4 stating that, “The learned MM further directed the Addl. Commissioner of Police to ensure fair, proper and expeditious investigation. During the investigation, the Addl. Commissioner of Police had transferred the investigation to Police Station Surajpur, Noida, U.P. This transfer of investigation from Delhi to Noida, U.P, has resulted into filing of the present petition.”
Most significantly, we must note that the Bench minces no words to hold cogently in para 13 that, “In the present case, the metropolitan magistrate while exercising his powers under section 156(3) directed investigation into the complaint. It was open to the respondent to raise objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction at the time when directions were issued by the learned MM directing investigation. Once the order has been passed by the magistrate directing investigation, it is not open to the police to raise objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. In fact, in the present case, the Addl. Commissioner of Police has transferred investigation from Delhi to Greater Noida, U.P. This is tantamount to reviewing the order of MM which only a superior court has the authority to do. In the present case, the Addl. Commissioner of Police has not challenged the order of MM in accordance with law, but has rather circumvented the order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction by transferring the investigation to Surajpur, Greater Noida, UP. The Addl. Commissioner of Police, by issuing the impugned order has acted as an appellate court.”
While citing the relevant case law, the Bench enunciates in para 14 that, “The Supreme Court in “Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat” [(2010) 1 SCC 1], has opined that-
“27. In our view, both the trial Court as well as the Bombay High Court had correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 156 Cr.P.C. to hold that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to refrain itself from holding a proper and complete investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
28. A glance at the material before the Magistrate would indicate that the major part of the loan transaction had, in fact, taken place in the State of Gujarat and that having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C., the proceedings of the investigation could not be questioned on the ground of jurisdiction of the officer to conduct such investigation. It was open to the learned Magistrate to direct an investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without taking cognizance on the complaint and where an investigation is undertaken at the instance of the Magistrate a Police Officer empowered under Sub-section (1) of Section 156 is bound, except in specific and specially exceptional cases, to conduct such an investigation even if he was of the view that he did not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
33. .. we are only required to consider whether the investigating officer in respect of an investigation undertaken under Section 156(3) CrPC 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 Section 156(1) CrPC, 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.””
While citing yet another very relevant case law, the Bench then lays bare in para 15 noting that, “The Supreme Court in “Kaushik Chatterjee v. State of Haryana and Others” [(2020) 10 SCC 92] has laid down the following guidelines:-
“20. The principles laid down in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code (contained in Chapter XIII) regarding the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials can be summarised in simple terms as follows:
20.1. Every offence should ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. This rule is found in Section 177. The expression “local jurisdiction” found in Section 177 is defined in Section 2(j) to mean “in relation to a court or Magistrate, means the local area within which the court or Magistrate may exercise all or any of its or his powers under the Code”.
20.2. In case of uncertainty about the place in which, among the several local areas, an offence was committed, the Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas may inquire into or try such an offence.
20.3. Where an offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
20.4. In the case of a continuing offence which is committed in more local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
20.5. Where an offence 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. (Numbers 2 to 5 are traceable to Section 178)
20.6. Where something is an offence by reason of the act done, as well as the consequence that ensued, then the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either the act was done or the consequence ensued. (Section 179)
20.7. In cases where an act is an offence, by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence, then the first mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either of the acts was done. (Section 180)
20.8. In certain cases such as dacoity, dacoity with murder, escaping from custody, etc., the offence may be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction either the offence was committed or the accused person was found.
20.9. In the case of an offence of kidnapping or abduction, it may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or conveyed or concealed or detained.
20.10. The offences of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed, received or retained.””
Be it noted, the Bench then observes in para 16 that, “A bare perusal of the complaint clearly shows that the complainant is a resident of Model town, Delhi. He carried Rs. 50,00,000 in cash and his chequebook to Noida from Delhi. Subsequently, the complainant reached Greater Noida wherein the said cash and cheques were forcibly taken away from him. The petitioner has made a complaint dated 05.12.2018 to PS Model Town and also on 01.01.2019 to ACP, DCP and Commissioner of Police. Hence, a part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The court of the learned MM, Delhi will have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and direct investigation to PS Model Town. When the learned MM directed the registration of FIR, no such objection was taken by the respondent.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 17 that, “From the observations made hereinabove and relying on the judgements, I am of the view that the order of Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) of transferring the investigation from PS Model Town, Delhi to PS Surajpur, Noida is bad in law and is liable to be set aside.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 18 that, “Hence, the petition is allowed and the order of Addl. Commissioner of Police (Crime) dated 11.11.2020 is hereby quashed.”
All told, we thus see that the Delhi High Court has made it pretty clear that the police can’t transfer FIR citing territorial jurisdiction after Magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) of CrPC. It thus naturally follows that the police must abide fully by what the Delhi High Court has laid down in this leading case so unambiguously! There can be just no denying or disputing it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
