Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the transfer of investigation to Waghodia Police Station, and the Supreme Court set aside that order, directing that the investigation remain with Vadodara Police Station.

Summary

The appellant filed an FIR at Vadodara Police Station on 23 December 2006 alleging cheating and related offences by the respondents for canceling a child's admission after receiving a large sum of money. The Vadodara police began investigation, but the appellant applied to the Gujarat High Court on 26 December for transfer of the investigation. The High Court, without giving notice, ordered on 28 December that the investigation be transferred to Waghodia Police Station, where the institution was located. The Supreme Court held that the FIR prima facie showed that a part of the cause of action arose within Vadodara's territorial jurisdiction, and that at such an early stage the High Court could not lawfully direct a transfer, especially without notice. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and the charge sheets filed by Waghodia Police, directing that the Vadodara police resume investigation.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to transfer an investigation from one police station to another under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Whether such a transfer can be ordered at an early stage of investigation without notice to the parties.
Whether the Supreme Court may entertain the appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 156, s. 157, s. 162, s. 177, s. 178, s. 181
Constitution of Indias. 136

Subjects

Criminal procedurePolice jurisdictionTransfer of investigationFIRHigh Court jurisdictionArticle 136Sections 156, 157, 177, 178, 181

Judgment

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 1102

A NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI
v
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 839 of 2008)
MAY 8, 2008
B
(S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.)

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 156 and 157 -
Investigation - Transfer of - FIR filed at Vadodara Police
c Station - High Court transferring the investigation to Waghodia
Police Station where institution situated against which FIR filed
- Order passed just after four days of filing FIR - Correctness
of - Held: FIR prima facie shows that part of cause of action
arose within territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police Station
- At such an early stage, investigation could not be directed
0
to be transferred when Waghodia Police Station where '
institution situated, is within jurisdiction of Vadodara - Thus, a
fit case to exercise jurisdiction ul Article 136 - Order of High
Court as also charge sheet filed by Waghodia Police Station
set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
E
On 23.12.2006, the appellant lodged FIR before the
Police Station, Vadodara City, under the Penal Code
against the respondents for canceling the admissions of
first informant's child in their institution after collecting a
F huge amount. The Vadodara Police initiated investigation.
'(
On 26.12.2006 applications were filed before High Court
for transfer of investigations. However, the informant was
not impleaded as a party and no notices were issued. On
28.12.2006, High Court transferred the investigation to
G another police station within whose jurisdiction the
institution was situated. Hence, the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power of the court to interfere with an
H 1102
NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF 1103
. -< GUJARAT & ANR.

investigation is limited. In terms of s. 156 Cr.P.C. the police A
authorities exercise a statutory power. The Code of
Criminal procedure has conferred power on the statutory
authorities to direct trFlnsfer of an investigation from one
Police Station to another in the event it is found that they
~ do not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court B
should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in
regard thereto. If it is found that the investigation has been
conducted by an Investigating Officer who did not have
any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should
be transferred by him to the police station having the c
requisite jurisdiction. [Para 5] [1106-D,E,F]
1.2 It is of some significance that the High Court
exercised its jurisdiction even without notice to the
petitioner. The investigation has to be carried out on the
y basis of the allegations made. The first informant is D
required to be examined; statements of his witnesses
were required to be taken; accused were also required to
be interrogated. The undue haste with which High Court
exercised its jurisdiction should not be encouraged.
Whether an officer incharge of police station has the E
requisite jurisdiction to make investigation or not will
depend upon a large number of factors including those
contained ins. 177, 178 and 181 Cr.P.C. In a case where a
trial can be held iri any of the places falling within the
purview of the aforementioned provisions, investigation F
can be conducted by the officer in-charge of the police
station which has jurisdiction to investigate in relation
thereto. [Para 6] [1106-G,H, 1107-A,B]
1.3 Investigation has been carried out by the officer
incharge of Police Station Waghodia only pursuant to the G
:>'.
order of the High Court. If the order of the High Court is to
be set aside, the investigation must be held to have been
carried out without any jurisdiction. The concern is not
with the quality of the investigation but the effect of the
order passed by the High Court. It is not known as to H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A whether proper investigation, has in fact been considered
at by the court or not. [Para 9) [1109-D,E,F]
1.4 The FIR prima facie shows that a part of cause of
jurisdiction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of
Vadodara Police Station. It cannot be understood as to
B how at such an early stage, the investigation should have .4

been directed to be transferred, having regard to the fact
that Waghodia Police Station where the 'institution' in
question is situated is within the jurisdiction of Vadodara
(District) and is, therefore, not a case where the accused
c would have been even otherwise gravely prejudiced in
joining investigation. Therefore, it is not a case where
there should be refusal to exercise jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, the impugned
orders are set aside. Consequently, the charge sheets filed
D by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The ....
concerned Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station
would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in
accordance with law. Any document collected as also the
statements of any witnesses recorded by the officer in-
E charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may be
sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station. [Paras
10, 11) [1109-G, 1110-A,B,C]
Satvindver Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 1999
(8) SCC 728; Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha
F (2007) 5 sec 786 - referred to. 'f

CRIMINAL ALPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 839 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.12.2006 of
G the High Court of Gujrat Ahmedabad in Criminal Application
No. 2272 of 2006.
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 840 of 2008.
H
cc: NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF 1105
GUJARAT & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J]
-<.
l.H. Syed and Varinder Kumar sharma for the Appellant. A
Soil J. Sorabjee, Hemantika Wahi, V. Madhukar, Sangeeta
Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi, Ejaz Maqbool, Mitul She lat, Vikash Singh
and Pardhuman Gohil for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to
transfer an investigation from one Police Station to another is
the core question involved in these two appeals which arise out c
of judgment and order dated 28.12.2006 in Special Criminal
Appeal Nos.2272 and 2271 of 2006.
3. Appellant lodged a First Information Report before the
detective Crime Branch, Police Station, Vadodara City under
Sections 406, 420 and 1208 of the Indian Penal Code against D
)r
the respondents. According to P1e appellants, the respondent
had assured that the child of the first informants would be
admitted in their institution and on that pretext, collected a huge
amount from them. The children of the first informant took
admission after depositing the admission fee and miscellaneous E
charges etc. However, their admission was later on cancelled.
4. The FIR was lodged on 23.12.2006. Vadadora Police
initiated the investigation. Applications for transfer of
investigation were filed before the High Court. On 28.12.2006,
'r the High Court passed the impugned order in the following F
terms:
"Rule. Mr.P.D. Bhate Ld. APP waive service on behalf of
opponent State. At the joint request of the parties the matter
is taken up for final hearing today. G
By way of these petitions the petitioner has prayed to
. .
, ~ transfer the Investigation of complaint being ICR No.89 of
2006 and 90/2006 registered with DCB Police Station,
Vadodara city to another police station having territorial
jurisdiction or to CID Crime or any other independent H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A agency.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties Ld:APA has stated
that respondent State has no objection if the complaint in
question is transferred to some authority as prayed for.
B In that view of the matter Complaint No.ICR 89 of 2006
and 90 of 2006 registered with DCB Police Station, ~

Vadodara city are ordered to be transferred to another
police station within whose jurisdiction the institution is
situated. With the said direction, the petition stand
c disposed of. Rule is made absolute."
5. The informant was not imp leaded as a party therein. No
notice was issued on the said appeals. No reason has been
assigned. The Court did not advert to the question as to whether
it had any jurisdiction to pass the said order. Why such a
D concession was made by the learned APP on the very first day
of hearing is not known. 'I

The power of the court to interfere with an investigation is
limited. The police authorities, in terms of Section 156 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, exercise a statutory power. The
E
Code of Criminal procedure has conferred power on the
statutory authorities to direct transfer of an investigation from
one Police Station to another in the event it is found that they do
not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court should not
interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is
F· found that the investigation has been conducted by an
-(
Investigating Officer who did not have any territorial jurisdiction
in the matter, the same should be transferred by him to the police
station having the requisite jurisdiction.

G 6. It is of some significance that the High Court exercised
its jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The
investigation has to be carried out on the basis of the allegations
made. The first informant is required to be examined; statements ~ ......
of his witnesses were required to be taken; the accused were
also required to be interrogated.
H
NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF 1107
GUJARAT & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised A
its jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged.
Whether an officer incharge of a police station has the requisite
jurisdiction to make investigation or not will depend upon a large
number of factors including those contained in Sections 177,
. 178and181 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a case where B
a trial can be held in any of the places falling within the purview
of the aforementioned provisions, investigation can be
conducted by the concerned officer in-charge of the police
station which has jurisdiction to investigate in relation thereto.
Sub-section (4) of Section 181 of the Code of Criminal c
Procedure Code would also be relevant therefor.

We need not dilate more on analyses of the
aforementioned provisions as the said question has been gone
into by this Court on more than one occasion.
D
~ >- In Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : 1999
(8) sec '128 this Court noticing various provisions of the Code
of Criminal Procedure opined:
"12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it
clear that Section 177 provides for "ordinary" place of E
enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia, provides for place
of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of several
local areas an offence was committed or where the offence
was committed partly in one local area and partly in another
and where it consisted of several acts done in different F
local areas, it could be enquired into or tried by a court
having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at
the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO
does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the
crime." G
It was furthermore held :
"15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court committed
a grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent
that the. investiga~:ng officer had no jurisdiction to H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.
•
A investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part
of the offence was committed within the territorial
jurisdiction of the 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
B collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially
......
scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the police station
officer of a 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
c 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 enquired
into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such
local areas. Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation
that the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
D
was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on the face of it, ...
illegal arid 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
E
the said embargo when it entertained the petition of
Respondent 2 on the ground of want of territorial
jurisdiction."

7. Yet again in Asif Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad
F Ojha : (2007) 5SCC 786 this Court clearly held :- y
"32. No such explicit prayer was made by the respondents
in their writ petition, although a prayer for issuance of a
writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the State of West
Bengal to transfer Case No. 381 to the State of U.P., had
G been made. The question of the State of West Bengal's
having a legal duty in that behalf did not arise. Only in the
)(
event an investigating officer, having regard to the
provisions contained in Sections 154, 162, 177 and 178
of the Code of Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding
that he alleged crime was not committed within his
'
H
NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF 1109
GUJARAT & ANR. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

territorial jurisdiction, could forward the first information A
report to the police having jurisdiction in the matter.
'
33. Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should not
J have issued such a direction. Assuming, however, that the
High Court could mould the relief, in our opinion, it was not
a case where on the face of the allegations made in the 8
complaint petition, the same could be said to be mala
fide. A major part of the cause of action might have arisen
in the State of U.P., but the same by itself would not mean
that the Calcutta Court had no jurisdiction whatsoever."
c
8. Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Huzefa
Ahmed, appearing for the respondent No.2 in each of the
appeals, however, brought to our notice that charge-sheet has
already been submitted. It was contended that proper
investigation has been carried out in the matter and even the D
>- accused respondent had been taken into custody and, thus, this
Court, m a situation of this nature, should no~ exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
9. Investigation has been carried out by the officer incharge
of Police Station Waghodia only pursuant to the order of the E
High Court. If the order of the High Court is to be set aside, the
investigation must be held to have been carried out without any
jurisdiction. We are not, herein concerned with the quality of the
investigation but the effect of the order passed by the High Court.
We do not know as to whether proper investigation as F
contended, has in fact been considered at by the court or not.
10. The first information report was lodged on 23rd
December, 2006. The High Court appears to have been
approached within a few days, namely 26th December, 2006.
G
The impugned order has been passed on 28th December,
2006. The first information report prima facie shows that a part
of cause of jurisdiction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of
Vadodara Police Station. We fail to understand as to how at
such an early stage, the investigation should have been directed H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R.

A to be transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia Police
Station where the 'institution' in question is situated is within the
jurisdiction of Vadodara (District) and is, therefore, not a case
where the accused would have been even otherwise gravely
prejudiced in joining investigation.
B
11. We, therefore. are of the opinion that it is not a case
where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article
136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the
impugned orders. Consequently, the charge sheets filed by the
Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The concerned Police
C Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate
investigation in the matter in accordance with law. Any document
collected as also the statements of any witnesses recorded by
the officer in-charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may
be sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station.
D
12. The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned
observations and directions.
N.J. Appeals allowed
•
'