Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that the FIR in Kerala was maintainable but the investigation and trial should be transferred to the Courtallam police in Tamil Nadu to serve the interest of justice.

Summary

The deceased Jeeja, married to appellant Premkumar, died by suicide in Tamil Nadu on 14 Feb 2003. Her father‑in‑law reported the death to the Courtallam police (Tamil Nadu) who registered a case under s.174 CrPC and concluded it was a suicide due to mental illness, halting further investigation. The deceased’s father later lodged an FIR in Kerala (Kadakkavoor police) under s.3048 IPC (dowry death) and a charge‑sheet was filed. The appellants contended that the Kerala police lacked jurisdiction under s.177 CrPC and that the second FIR was impermissible. The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition and the appellants appealed. The Supreme Court held that, although the FIR in Kerala was maintainable, the interest of justice required that the investigation and trial be transferred to the police officer in charge of Courtallam Police Station, Tamil Nadu, with all material to be handed over, and directed a fresh investigation by the Tamil Nadu Superintendent of Police. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

The Kerala police had jurisdiction to investigate an offence under s.3048 IPC when the death occurred in Tamil Nadu and an earlier inquest was made there.
Whether the FIR lodged in Kerala was maintainable under s.177 CrPC in view of the prior report under s.174 CrPC.
The interpretation and scope of the word ‘ordinarily’ in s.177 CrPC and the applicability of s.178.
Whether the investigation and trial should be transferred to the Tamil Nadu police.
Whether the elements of s.3048 IPC (dowry death) were satisfied.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 174, s. 177, s. 178, s. 482
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 3048, s. 34

Subjects

jurisdictionSection 177 CrPCSection 3048 IPCdowry deathsuicidetransfer of investigationcriminal procedurecause of actionmental illness defenceFIR maintainability

Judgment

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 1425

PREMKUMAR & ORS. A
v.
.. -;.; STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 2088 of 2008)
DECEMBER 19, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

Code of,Criminal Procedure, 1973:
ss. 177 and 178 - Jurisdiction to conduct enquiry a(1d trial ,
-. - Determining factors - Discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - · c
s.3048.
ss.177 and 178 - Suicidal death in State of Tamil Nadu ·
- Father-in-law informed the Courtallam police station, Tamil·
-Nadu - Case r'egistered under s.174 - Inspector submitted
report stating that deceased committed suicide on account of , D
her mental illness - Investigation stopped - Father of ,
deceased lodged FIR in State of Kera/a - Application for
..
-f
quashing of FIR - Rejected - Held: In the interest of justice,
investigation and consequent trial transferred to police officer ·
in-charge of Courta/lam Police Station, Tamil Nadu - All E
materials collected by Kodakkavoor Police Station, Kera/a to
be transferred to officer in-ch~rge of Courtallam Police
Station.
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Essential ingredients -
Discussed.
.. Prosecution case was that on 14.2.2003, the
F
-,:
deceased, who was wife of appellant 1 and daughter-in-
law of appellant 2 committed suicide by hanging, in the
State of Tamil Nadu. Appellant 2 informed the Courtallam
police station about the unnatural death pursuant G
.c whereto case uls. 174 Cr.P.C. was registered. The
Inspector of Police, Courtallam submitted a report stating
that deceased committed suicide on account of her
1 mental illness. The investigation pursuant to report u/s.
1425
H
~
1426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A 174 was stopped.
The father of deceased lodged a complaint on
4.3.2003 with Kadakkavoor Police in State of Kerala on "r-
the basis whereof an FIR was lodged for an offence u/s.
3048 r/w. s.34 IPC. A charge sheet was filed by
B Kadakkavoor Police.
Appellants filed an application under s.482 Cr.P .C.
before the High Court Kerala, Ernakulam, contending that
the Kadakkavoor Police Station in the State of Kerala had

c
no jurisdiction.to conduct an investigation in view of the
provision contained in s.177 Cr.P.C. and in any event one
FIR having already been lodged by appellant no.2, the
.
second FIR was not maintainable. The said application
was- dismissed. Hence the instant appeal.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
D HELD: 1.1. Jurisdiction to make an enquiry and trial ~
is laid down in Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. s.177 thereof
provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction ..."t
it was committed. S.178, however, provides that when it
E is uncertain in which of the local areas an offence was
committed or where an offence is committed partly in one
local area and partly in another or where an offence is
continuing one, and continues to be committed in more
local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a
F court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
[Para 8] [1432-~-C]
~
Vidhya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 9 SCC
476, relied on.
2. The word, 'ordinarily' occurring in s.177, Cr.P.C.
G must be given its natural meaning. The provisions
contained in s.178 and other provisions would be
attracted when s.177 cannot be given effect to. These ""*"
provisions in the Code governing the field emanate from \-
the doctrine that all crimes are local. Investigation into a
H ...
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1427

crime, the witnesses who are required to be examined for A
the purpose of proving the commission thereof and other
relevant factors which are required to be taken .for .
consideration thereof lead to the aforementioned
inference. For the purpose of finding out in regard to the '
place, where the enquiry or trial should be conducted, , 8
would be that the offence has taken place wholly or partly
in the jurisdiction of one police station or wholly or partly
in the jurisdiction of another police station and, thus,
would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each
case. [Para 9] [1432-C-F]
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai
c
& Anr.(2004) 8 SCC 100 and Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v.
State of Gujarat & Anr. (2008) 8 sec 300, relied on.
Asif Bhattacharjee v. Mis. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors.
2007(7) SCALE 241, referred to. 0
2. The provisions of the Penal Code under which the
accused is charged would also play an important role.
Appellants were charged for commission of an offence
under s.3048 of the IPC. The said provision was inserted
by Act 43 of 1986 with effect from 19.11.1986. By reason E
thereof a new offence was created. A new procedure for
trial has been laid down. The ingredients of the said
offence must be proved for bringing home a charge,
namely, that the accused had killed the deceased for not
satisfying his demand of dowry and she was subjected
to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative · F
of his for or in connection with demand for dowry. By
reason of the said provision, a legal fiction has been
created. What is, therefore, necessary is that such cruelty
or harassment for or in connection with any demand for
dowry must have been made 'soon before her death'. The G
said words do not lead to fixation of a time-frame. It will
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
. -j In this case, nothing happened even a week prior to her
death. Admittedly, no torture or harassment had taken
place in regard to demand of sale of land in her favour. H .
1428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A However, that may be a subject-matter of proof. [Paras 10,
12] [1432-F-H; 1434-E-D]
3. In view of the fact that the police at Courtallam,
Tamil Nadu had already been informed, although stricto
sensu, the same cannot be construed to be an FIR within
B the meaning of provisions of s.154, Cr.P.C., and, thus,
F.l.R. lodged at Kadakkavoor Police Station was
maintainable, the interest of justice would be subserved
if the investigation and consequent trial is transferred to
Police Officer in charge of Courtallam Police Station,
C Tamil Nadu. All the materials collected by Kadakkavoor
Police Station, Kerala shall be transferred to the officer
in-charge of Courtallam Police Station, Tamil Nadu. The
officer in-charge of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Kerala,
must ensure that in the event a charge-sheet is filed and
cognizance of offence under s.3048, IPC is taken,
D witnesses who are available within his jurisdiction should
be produced. [Para 17] [1438-A-D] ·
4. Such an unusual order is passed keeping in view
the specific defence raised by the appellants that the
deceased had been suffering from some mental illness.
E However, with a view that a fair investigation is carried
out the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district
at Tamil Nadu is directed to make an investigation himself
and/or cause the same to be made by a highly
responsible officer. [Para 17] [1438-D-E]
F Case Law Reference:
(2004) 9 SCC 476 relied on Para 11
(2004) 8 SCC 100 relied on Para 13
(2008) 8 SCC 300 relied on Para 16
2007(7) SCALE 241 referred to Para 15
G
CRIMINAL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2088 of 2008.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 11.2.2008 of the \-
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal M.C. No. 3267
H of 2004 (C).
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 142~

K.V. Vishwanathan, M. Gireesh Kumar, Avjeeth Kr. Lala A
and Vijay Kumar for the Appellants.
-\>
P. V. Dinesh for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted.
B
2. Jeeja, the deceased was married on 12.09.1998 with
the first appellant herein, Dr. Premkumar at Attingal. They had .
been residing at Chenkkottah, in the district of Tenkasi in the
..: State of Tamil Nadu. She committed suicide at her matrimonial
,., house which is in the State of Tamil Nadu on 14.02.2003.
Appellant no.2 herein, father-in-law of the deceased, informed
c
the Courtallam Police about the said unnatural death pursuant
whereto a case being Crime No.64/2003 under Section 174
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was registered. ,
The body of the deceased was subjected to inquest by the Sub
Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, D
Tenkasi and an enquiry was conducted by the said officer and
a report was submitted before the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Tenkasi wherein, inter alia, it was stated :
"On the basis of the inquest conducted, and on the basis
of the enquiries made with the husband, father-in-law, E
mother-in-law, brothers-in-law, father, mother, brothers and
sisters of the deceased, and on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the reputed locals, and viewing the position
and situation of the room in which the dead body was lying
~
and other circumstances; I come to the conclusion that the F
... death of Jeeja by hanging is not one due to dowry based
\

cruelty.
I request to make detailed investigation as to under what
circumstances Smt. Jeeja died by hanging."
The Inspector of Police, Courtallam submitted a report before G
the Sub-collector and Revenue Divisional Officer stating that
Jeeja committed suicide on account of her mental illness. The
-f investigation pursuant to the report under Section 174, Cr.P.C.
was stopped stating :
-+ H
1430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A "It is·truly evident that Jeeja, knowing that the fact of her
mental illness had come to the knowledge of her husband
and parents-in-law, and that despite the homeopathy, ~ .,
ayurveda and allopathic treatment the mental disease-had
not subsided, became mentally depressed and as a result
of the mental agony she had undergone she came to the
B decision of committing suicide by hanging, and
accordingly on 14.2.2003 at 9.00 AM after telling her
husband that she would not speak to him, and after the
deP,arture of her husband and father-in-law to the clinic at 1-"

9.30 AM, she went to wash and dry the clothes at 10.30 -Y
c AM and after that she went into the first room at the
upstairs and after locking from inside the box lock of the
w9oden plank shutter of the door and placing the key on
the table, and locking from inside of the glass windows on
1
the south, lower and north side of the said room, she went
D into the bed room, and after locking the bed room door
from inside, she climbed on the small stool and the cot in
the room and after tying a nylon churidar shawl at the
ceiling fan clamp at the roof by a knot and tying the other \
er;id of the sh~wl around the neck by making a knot by
E herself and jumped down from the cot and as a result of
hanging the khot around her throat got tightened and
caused suffocation that resulted in her death.
Therefore the [investigation of this case is stopped and
further action dropped, and this final report is submitted."
F Father of the deceased, however, lodged a complaint with the ,,,
Kadakkavoor Police in the State of Kerala on or about
04.03.2003 on the pasis whereof a First Information Report (for ---
s~ort, 'FIR') was lodged for an offence punishable under Section
3048 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
G 3. Appellant no.1 was arrested from his residence at
Shenkottai (Tam:il Nadu) and produced before Judicial
Magistrate First C!ass, Varkkala. A charge-sheet was filed by
Kadakkavoor Police on or about 13.04.2004. ~
4. Appellants filed an application under Section 482 of the
H
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1431
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

Cr.P.C. before the High Court Kerala, Ernakulam, inter alia, A
contending that the Kadakkavoor Police Station in the State of
~ Kerala had no jurisdiction to conduct an investigation in view
:: of the provision contained in Section 177 of the Cr.P.C. and in
any event one FIR having already been lodged by appellant
no.2 herein, the second FIR was not maintainable. B
5. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said
application having been dismissed, the appellants are before
r
.. us.
6. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, the learned counsel appearing
..; on behalf of the appellants would contend : c
(i) As the entire cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the Police Station Courtallam in the·
State of Tamil Nadu, the impugned order cannot be·
sustained;
(ii) By reason of insertion of Section 304B of the IPC, · D
a legal fiction having been raised, before a person
can be prosecuted under the said provision all ·
i ingredients thereof must be strictly proved;
(iii) All crime being local, the provisions of Section 177,

- Cr.P.C. subject to the exceptions contained in E
Sections 178, 179 etc., must ordinarily be followed;
and
(iv) In any view of the matter, the second FIR in the State
of Kerala was not maintainable.
7. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, the learned counsel appearing on F
'ti behalf of the State of Kerala, however, would contend that the
report made under Section 174, Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be
a First Information Report within the meaning of Section 154

..
' f
thereof as the same was meant to hold an inquest and
submission of a report in respect thereof by an Executive G
Magistrate. The learned counsel would contend that one of the
ingredients of an offence under Section 3048 of the IPC being
demand of dowry and/or harassment of the deceased by her
husband or relatives of the husband and a part thereof having
taken place in the State of Kerala, the Kerala Police had also H
~

""
1432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction to investigate into the said offence.
8. Jurisdiction to make an enquiry and trial is laid down in
Chaptaer XIII of Cr.P.C. Section 177 thereof provides that every .... ·~--=-

offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court
within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 178,
B however, inter alia, provides thatwhen it is uncertain in which
of the local areas· an offence was committed or where an
offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in
another or where an offence is continuing one, and continues
to be committed in more local areas than one, it may be ....
inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of
c such local areas.
;,,,,

9. The word, 'ordinarily' occurring in Section 177, Cr.P.C.
must be given its natural meaning. The provisions contained
in Section 178 and other provisions would be attracted when
D Section 177 cannot be given effect to. These provisions in the
Code governing the field emanate from the doctrine that all )'
crimes are local. Investigation into a crime, the witnesses who i.--2-
are required to be examined for the purpose of proving the )..
~
commission thereof and other relevant factors which are ;
required to be taken for consideration thereof lead to the
E aforementioned inference. For the purpose of finding out in
-,,,,
regard to the place, where the enquiry or trial should be
conducted, would be that the offence has taken place wholly
or partly in the jurisdiction of one police station or wholly or
partly in the jurisdiction of another police station and, thus, would
F depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case.
10. The provisions of the Penal Code under which the .,
accused is charged will also play an important role. Appellants
have been charged for commission of an offence under Section

..
>--
3048 of the IPC. The said provision was inserted by Act 43 of 1,

G 1986 with effect from 19.11.1986. By reason thereof a new
offence was created. A new procedure for trial has been laid
down. The ingredients of the said offence must be proved for
bringing home a charge, namely, that the accused had killed ~
the deceased for not satisfying his demand of dowry and she
L'
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
H
....
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1433
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

relative. of his for or.' in connection with demand for dowry. By A
reason of the said provision, a legal fiction has been created.
What is, therefore, necessary is that such cruelty or harassment
for or in connection with any demand for dowry must have been
made 'soon before her death'. The said word~ do not lead to
fixation of a time-frame. It will depend upon the facts and 8 ,
circumstances of each case. In support of the case of the State,
Mr. P.V. Dinesh has drawn our attention to paragraphs 7 and 8
of the First Information Report lodged by the father of the
... deceased which is in the following terms :
"7. Three months after the delivery, the petitioners daughter C
and child were again taken to Shengottai. Another
complaint made by the 2nd counter petitioner alleging that
the petitioner and .the-- ,family members have
misappropriated some gold ornaments gifted to the child
by close relatives. Thereafter there were not much
DI
communications and the petitioner was under an
impression that things were going on smoothly.
8. During December 2002 the counter petitioners along
with the daughter of the petitioner came to their residence
at Trivandrum and stayed there for some days. During this
period, the counter petitioners again made a demand for E
sale of the property stands in the name of the daughter of
the petitioner and to hand over the sale proceeds to them.
This demand was negatived by the petitioners daughter
and she was manhandled by the counter petitioners and
she was harassed repeatedly and even she was deprived F
of food for a day or two in this connection. She could not
with stand the harassment for longer period during last
week of January 2003, the 1st counter petitioner along with
Jeeja and child came to the petitioners residence. She
came there agreeing the 1st counter petitioner to discuss G
this issue with the petitioner, but ignoring the said
agreement, she did not speak much about the sale of
property is sold and the amount is paid to the counter
petitioners. The petitioner advised her to relax and stay
here for some days. The wife of the petitioner was ailing
H
1434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A as she underwent an operation and t.hat may be reason
why the demand of the counter petitioners was not exactly
disclosed t~ the petitioner. While she was staying at the .,.._
petitioners house she was taken by the first counter
petitioner a week prior to 14-2-03, disregarding the
petitioners request to retain her at the petitioners house."
B
11. This Court in the case of Vidhya Devi & Anr. v. State
of Haryana reported in (2004) 9 sec476 observed as under

,,,.
"6. ..... The expression "soon before" is a relative term
_.,
c which requires to be construed in the context of specific
circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule of
any univer~al application can be laid down by fixing any
time-limit.".i
12. In this case nothing happened even a week prior to
D her death. Admittedly, .no torture or harassment had taken place
in regard to demand of sale of land in her favour. However, that
may be a subject-matter of proof. We are making these
observations only for the purpose of disposal of this application.
'
·t-
13. So far as the jurisdiction of Kadakkavoor Police Station
E vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 177, Cr.P.C. is concerned,
we may notice that in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v.
Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100 this
Court
.
in a' case arising under Sections-
498A and 406 as well
as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 held as under
F
"9. "All crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs
to the country where the crime is committed", as observed
by Blackstone. A significant word used in Section 177 of
the Code is "ordinarily". Use of the word indicates that the
pirovision is a general one and must be read subject to the
G
special provisions contained in the code. As observed by
the Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of WB. AIR
1961 SC 1589: (1962) 2 SCR 101, L.N. Mukherjee v.
State of Madras AIR 1961 SC 1601 : (1962) 2 SCR 116,
y
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC
H
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1435
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

1620 : 1963 Supp.(2) SCR 338 and Mohan Baitha v. A
State of Bihar (2001) 4 SCC 350 exception implied by the
• word "ordinarily" tieed not be provided by law on
consideration or m~y be implied from the provisions of law
permitting joint trial of offences by the same court. No such
exception is applicable to the case at hand."
B
The question, therefore, which is required to be posed was as
to whether any part of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the Court concerned.
,...
14. This Court applied the meaning of the expression
• 'cause of action' to hold :
"17.' The expression "cause of action" is generally
c
understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles
a party to maintain an action in a court or a tribunal; a
group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases
for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to D
obtain a remedy in court from another person. In Black's
Law Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the
entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim;
the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the
plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words
E
and Phrases (4th Edn.), the meaning attributed to the
phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is
existence of those facts, which give a party a right to
judicial interference on his behalf."
15. An identical question recently came up for
F
consideration in the case of Asit Bhattacharjee v. Mis.
"'II Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors. 2007(7) SCALE 241 wherein
this Court in the peculiar facts obtaining therein although opined
that a part of cause of action arose within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata as a larger
part arose in U.P. directed as under: G
"37. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice
would be subserved if this appeal is disposed of with the
1 following directions :
(i) Further investigation shall be carried out by C.B.C.l.D.
H
1436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R.

A of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(ii) Accused/respondents shall surrender before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and their applications for
grant of bail, if any, may be considered by the said court
on its own merits.
B (iii) The accused/respondent shall render all cooperation
with the Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed, if released on
bail. .~

(iv) Investigation shall be carried out inter alia on the
c premise that the jurisdiction to make investigation shall be
subject to the ultimate decision of the Court of the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as if investigations are
being carried out by the C.B.C.l.D. of the State of Uttar
Pradesh in continuation of the investigation made by the
D Officer-in-charge of the Shakespeare Sarani Police
Station. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad shall
be entitled to pass appropriate orders from time to time
in this behalf.
(v) The Report on completion of the investigation shall be
E - forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta
who shall determine the question of his own jurisdiction at
an appropriate stage.
(vi) This order, it is made clear, is being passed in exercise
of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
F Constitution of India. All concerned authorities are directed
to carry out these directions."
16. Yet recently in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri
v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 300 this Court directed
as under:
G "11. Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Huzffa
Ahmadi, appearing for Respondent 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
H the respondent-accused had been taken into custody and,
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 1437
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

thus, this Court, in a situation of this nature, should not A
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
_,. of India.
12. Investigation has been carried out by the officer in
charge of Police Station Waghodia only pursuant to the
order of the High Court. If the order of the High Court is to B
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 (sic the issue of) proper investigation as c
• contended, has in fact been considered by the court or not.
13. The first information report was lodged on 23-12-2006.
The High Court appears to have been approached within
a few days, namely, 26-12-2006. The impugned order has
been passed on 28-12-2006. The first information report
D
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 to be
transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia Police
Station where the "institution" in question is situated is E
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.
14. We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case
where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under F
Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set
aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge-
sheets filed by Waghodia Police Station stand setaside.
The police officer concerned of Vadodara Police Station
would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in G
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
1 to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station."
H
1438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 17 S.C.R.

A 17. In a case of this nature and following the
aforementioned decisions and particularly in view of the fact that
the police at Courtallam, Tamil Nadu had already been informed,
although stricto sensu, the same cannot be construed to be an
FIR within the meaning of provisions of Section 154, Cr.P.C.,
and, thus, F.l.R. lodged at Kadakkavoor Police Station was
8
maintainable, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice
would be subserved if the investigation and consequent trial is
transferred to Police Officer in charge of Courtallam Police
Station, Tamil Nadu. All the materials collected by Kadakkavoor
Police Station, Kerala shall be transferred to the officer incharge
C of Courtallam Police Station, Tamil Nadu. The officer incharge
of Kadakkavoor Police Station, Kerala, must ensure that in the
event a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance of offence under
Section 3048, IPC is taken, witnesses who are available within
his jurisdiction shall be produced.
D We have passed this unusual order keeping in view the
specific defence raised by the appellants that the deceased had
been suffering from some mental illness. However, with a view
that a fair investigation is carried out we would direct that the
Superintendent of Police of the concerned district at Tamil Nadu
E shall himself make an investigation and/or cause the same to
be made by a highly responsible officer.
18. The appeal stands allowed to the aforementioned
extent accordingly.
D.G. Appeal partly allowed.