Supreme Court of India
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKARversusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 1222
- Decided
- 6 November 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
A police officer cannot refuse to investigate a complaint ordered under Section 156(3) CrPC on the basis of territorial jurisdiction; the jurisdictional issue is for the court.
Summary
The appellant, Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakar, was charged by Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank for alleged loan fraud. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 156(3) of the CrPC ordered the Economic Offences Wing, State CID, to investigate. The investigating agency submitted a report stating that the alleged offences occurred in Mumbai, claiming lack of territorial jurisdiction and seeking transfer of the investigation. The magistrate rejected this report, directing a fresh investigation, a decision upheld by the High Court. The Supreme Court examined whether a police officer, empowered under Section 156(1), can refuse to investigate a complaint on jurisdictional grounds. It held that once an investigation is ordered under Section 156(3), the officer must proceed regardless of perceived jurisdiction, as the jurisdictional question is for the court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Can a police officer, empowered under Section 156(1) CrPC, decline to investigate a complaint forwarded under Section 156(3) on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction?
- Whether the jurisdictional question of the offence lies with the investigating agency or with the court.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(1), s. 156(2), s. 156(3), s. 181(4), s. 190
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act
- Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002
Subjects
Section 156 CrPCTerritorial jurisdictionPolice investigationCognizable offenceMagistrate's powerCriminal procedure
Judgment
. '
[2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 722
I
.._
A RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR
v. ... .\.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.
(CrimiRal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009)
NOVEMBER 06, 2009 .,
B
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
~
Code of c;riminal Procedure, 1973: s. 156(3). -
Investigating agency cannot decide not to investigate a
-~
complaint forwarded to it under s.156(3) on the ground that
c offence complained of was allegedly committed outside its
territorial jurisdiction.
The question which arose for consideration in the
present appeal was whether in regard to the order passed
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police authorities .,
empowered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 156 can
D
unilaterally decide not to conduct an investigation on the ~
ground that they had no territorial jurisdiction to do so. " _.!
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. A 'police officer in charge of a police station
E can, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any
cognizable offence which a Court having jurisdiction over
such police station can inquire into or try under Chapter
Ill of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of
Sect.ion 156 ensures that once an investigation is
commenced under Sub-section (1 ), the same is not
F
interrupted on the ground that the police officer was not
empowered under the Section to investigate. It is in the
nature ofa ''savings clause" in respect of investigations
undertaken in respect of cognizable offences. In addition
to the powers vested· in a Magistrate empowered under
.... i
I
G Section 190 Cr.P.C. to order an investigation under Sub-
section (1) of section 202 Cr.P.C., Sub-section (3) of
')<
Section 156 also empowers such Magistrate to order an
investigation on a complaint filed before him. Sub-section
(4) only indicates that an inquiry or trial of an offence of
H 722
,..
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 723
GUJARAT AND ORS.
criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust can A
be conducted by a Court within whose jurisdiction the
+ offence had been committed or any part of the property
forming the subject matter of the offence is received or
retained or was required to be returned or accounted for
by the accused person. The said provisions do not
8
account for a stage contemplated on account of an order
made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Paras 20 and 21] [732-
A-C-F-G]
Agencia Commercial International Ltd. v. Custodian of the
Branches of Banco National Ultramarino (1982) 2 SCC 482;
Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728;
c
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat (2008) 8 SCC
300; Asif Bhattacharjee ¥· Hanuman Prasad Ojha (2007) 5
sec 786, referred to.
2. In the instant case, the stage contemplated under
Section 181 (4) Cr.P .C. has not yet been reached. Prior to D
taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the Bank, the
Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, had
directed an inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A final
report was submitted by the Investigating Agency
-f.' entrusted with the investigation stating that since the E
alleged transactions had taken place within the territorial
limits of the city of Mumbai, no cause of action had arisen
in the State of .Gujarat and, therefore, the investigation
should be transferred to the police agency in Mumbai. Both
the t_rial Court as well as the Bombay High Court correctly
interpreted the provisions of Section 156 Cr.P .C. to hold F
--- 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 juris,diction. A glance at the material before the G
Magistrate would indicate that the major part of the loan
~i
f'
transaction, in fact, took 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
H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
8
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. [Para 22] [732-
H; 733-A-G] !--
3. It is the settled law that the complaint made in a
c criminal case follows the place where the cause arises, but
the distinguishing feature in the instant case is that the
stage of taking cognizance was yet to arrive. The
Investigating Agency was required to place the facts ,~-
elicited during the investigation before the Court in order
D to enable the Court to come to a conclusion as to whether
it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not. Without
conducting such an investigation,· it was improper on the
.
part of the Investigating Agency to forward its report with
the observation that since the entire cause of action for the '
1.-
alleged offence purportedly arose. in the city of Mumbai
E within the State of Maharashtra, the investigation should
be transferred to the concerned Police Station in Mumbai.
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. contemplates a stage where the
Magistrate is not convinced as to whether process should
issue on the facts disclosed in the complaint. Once-the
F facts are received, it is for the Magistrate to decide his next ....t=
course of action. In this case, there are materials to show
that the appellant had filed his application for loan with the
Head Office of the Bank at Ahmedabad and that the
processing. and the sanction of the loan was also done in
,Xmedabad which clearly indicates that the major part of
r
v
G
e cause of action for the complaints arose within the
jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, -;.
Ahmedabad. It was not, therefore, desirable on the part of
the Investigating Agency to make an observation that it
did not have territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the
H investigation, which was required to be transferred to the
• RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF
GUJARAT AND ORS.
725
-" Police Station having jurisdiction to do so. [Para 23] [734- A
A-F]
4. The Magistrate was fully justified in rejecting the
Final Report submitted by the Economic Offences Wing,
State CID (Crime) and to order a fresh investigation into
the allegations made on behalf of the Bank. The High B
Court, therefore, did not commit any error in upholding the
views expressed by the Trial Court. Section 181(4) Cr.P.C.
.... deals with the Court's powers to inquire or try an offence
of criminal misappropriation or of a criminal breach of trust
ifthe same has been committed or any part of the property,
'
-I which is the subject of the offence, is received or retained c
w.ithin the local jurisdiction of the said Court. [Para 24] [734-
F-H; 735-A]
5. 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 D
" a complaint even if it did not have territorial jurisdiction to
do so. Unlike as in other cases, it was for the Court to
mt" decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint as and when the entire facts were placed before
-I
it. [Para 25] [735-C-D] E
Case Law Reference :
(1982) 2 sec 482 referred to Para 10
(1999) 8 sec 728 referred to Para 11
(2008) 8 sec 300 referred to Para 12
(2001) s sec 786 referred to Para 13 F
CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 2041 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 15.03.2007 of the High
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application
Nos. 2149-2153 of 2006. G
:r Varinder Kumar Sharma for the Appellant.
Gaurav Goel, E.C. Agrawala, Hemantika Wahi, for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. lj
726 SUPREME,,COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 2. The Madhavpura Mercantile Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
which is governed by the provisions of the Multi State .
Cooperative Societies Act, 2002, has its Registered as well as
Head Office at Madhavpura Market, Shastribaug, Ahmedabad,
and carries on banking operations in the State of Gujarat,
Maharashtra among other States in India. According to the Bank,
B
all its activities relating to disbursement of loans are conducted
from the Head Office at Ahmedabad.
3. In 1992, the appellant's company took loan from the
aforesaid Bank which for the reasons prevailing closed down its ...
business operations in 2001. Thereafter, a Scheme of
c Reconstruction approved by the Reserve Bank of India was ?
formulated and a new Board of Management (Administration)
came to ge appointed to implement the same. Several
irregularities were discovered regarding the grant of loans to
borrowers with the connivance of the then Chief Executive
D Officer, Managing Director and Chairman of the Bank. Several
complaints came to be registered against the said officers and
,,,_
several borrowers. Five such complaints were filed against the
appellant on 9th July, 2003, before the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, who directed the Economic Offences
Wing, State C.l.D .. (Crime), Ahmedabad, under Section 156(3)
E
Cr.P.C. to carry out an investigation. The Investigating Agency
submitted a report stating that the allegations complained of had
been committed within the territorial limits of the city of Mumbai,
Maharashtra, and that the investigation should, therefore, be
transferred to the Investigation Agency in Mumbai, Maharashtra ..
F 4. The said report was rejected by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on the ground that it was not for the
Investigating Agency to decide not to investigate a complaint
forwarded to it under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the grounc ~ilat
the offence complained of was allegedly committed out~:de the
G territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency. li1e learned
Magistrate by his order dated 31.5.:2.006, directed the
Investigating Agency to carry out a further investigation and report 1
whether the alleged offence had been committed or not.
5. The said order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmedabad, was challenged by the appellant herein before the
H
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 727
_ GUJARAT AND ORS. (ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
City Civil and Sessions Court at Ahmedabad in revision which A
was dismissed on 22.9.2006 by the City Sessions Judge Court
No.11, Ahmedabad. A writ petition was filed in the High Court
by the appellant on 21.11.2006 being Writ Petition No.2366 of
2006, challenging the decision of the Sessions Court.
6. Before the High Court it was reiterated that the loan had B
been availed of by the appellant's company from the Mandvi
Branch of the Bank in Mumbai which had an independent identity
as a registered co-operative Society under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act. It was also reiterated that the loan
amount had been disbursed from the said Branch in Mumbai. It
was contended that since the cause of action for the alleged C
--{
' offence had arisen outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad, he could not direct the
Investigating Agency under his jurisdiction to conduct an
investigation into the complaint made against the appellant in
respect of such cause of action. D
7. Accepting the views expressed by the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate that the Investigating Agency was only required to
state the outcome of the investigation pursuant to an order under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that it had no authority to state which
Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged offence, the High E
Court by its impugned judgment dated 15.3.2007 dismissed the
writ petition filed by the appellant, inter alia, on the following
grounds:-
(i) That the Investigating Agency had travelled beyond
its jurisdiction in expressing its views regarding the
territorial jurisdiction in regard to a criminal offence F
which was for the Courts to decide.
(ii) That the Station House Officer is vested with the
authority to investigate any cognizable offence in
respect of which an F.l.R. is lodged.
G
(iii) The powers reserved to the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be interfered with or
curtailed on the ground that the Investigating Officer
had no territorial jurisdiction over the investigation.
8. It appears that when the writ petitions were taken up for H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A hearing a prayer was made for amendment of the prayers by
incorporating paragraph 14(888) in each of the writ petitions.
By virtue of the amended prayer, the appellant wanted the High
Court to quash and set aside Enquiry Case No.21 of 2003 filed
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, and to
also quash the order directing investigation under Section 156(3)
8
Cr.P.C. and the proceedings arising therefrom. The said prayer
was rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and also
on the ground that the order of the Magistrate dated 9.7.2003
had not been challenged for a period of four years. i.-
9. Learned counsel Mr. l.H. Syed, appearing for the
C appellant submits that the High Court had dismissed the
appellant's Writ Petition on an erroneous interpretation of the
provisions of Section 156(3) and 181(4) Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel submitted that the High Court had failed to notice that
Sub-section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C. conferred exclusive
o jurisdiction on the Investigation Officer to investigate into a case
and no proceeding of a police officer in any case in which he is
entitled to investigate shall at any stage be called 4n question. ~-
Alleging that the power of the Magistrate under Sub-section (3)
was circumscribed by the powers vested in the Investigating
Agency under Sub-Section (2) of Section 156 Cr.P.C, and that
E it was only the Investigating Agency which could decide the
question relating to the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the
crime committed, learned counsel submitted that the High Court
had erred in upholding the views expressed by the learned Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate that the Investigating Agency was only
F required to state the outcome of the investigation conducted
pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that it had
no authority or right to state as to which Court had jurisdiction to
inquire into the alleged offence in question. Learned counsel
submitted that the High Court had erred in law in observing that
G it was a settled proposition of law that when a Magistrate J1rects
an investigation to be conducted in exercise of his powers under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the main duty of the Investigating Agency
is to submit a report as to the commission of an offence and,
thereafter, it was for the Court concerned to accept such Report
and to decide the question of jurisdiction and that the learned
H
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 729
GUJARAT AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Magistrate had rightly rejected the Final Report on the ground A
that the Investigating Agency had no authority under the law to
express its opinion on the merits of a case.
10. Learned counsel re-emphasized the submissions made
before the High Court that although the Registered Office and
Head Office of the Bank were in Ahmadabad in Gujarat, each B
of its Branches in the other States was an independently
registered Co-operative Society and was a unit of its own under
the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.
Furthermore, the loan was availed of and disbursed in Mumbai.
Consequently, since the entire cause of action relating to the
application and disbursement of the loan had arisen in Mumbai, C
the Gujarat High Court had committed an error of law in passing
the impugned order and the same was liable to be quashed. In
support of his aforesaid contention, learned counsel referred to
the decision of this Court in Ag(!Jncia Commercial International .
Ltd. vs. Custodian of the Branches of Banco National D
Ultramarino [(1982) 2 sec 482], wherein while considering a
,., similar question, this Court held that in the case of a body
corporate its branches are not distinct entities and the Branches
are mere components through which the corporate entity
expresses itself and all transactions entered into with the E
Branches are transactions with the corporate body itself.
However, a distinction was made in cases of Banks which also
operate through its Branches which are regarded for many
purposes as separate and distinct entities from the Head Office
1 and each other.
11. Learned counsel then relied on the decision of this Court F
in Satvinder Kaur vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(1999) 8 SCC 728}
in support of his submission that in view of the provisions of
Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. a police officer was competent to
investigate any cognizable offence and was also competent to
forward the same to the police station having territorial G
jurisdiction if he came to the conclusion that the crime had been
, committed beyond his territorial jurisdiction.
12. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court
in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri vs. State of Gujarat
[(2008) 8 SCC 300], where the question involved was the High H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Court's jurisdiction to transfer an investigation from one police
station to another. In the facts of the said case it was held that ~
under Section 156 Ct. P. C. the police authorities exercise
statutory powers to direct transfer of an investigation from one
police station to another in the event it was found that they did
not have jurisdiction in the matter and the Court should not
B
interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto.
13. Similar observations were made in Asit Bhattacharjee
vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha [(2007) 5 SCC 786], though in a
different context involving the transfer of an investigation ordered
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to another State where the major
c part of the offences had taken place. This Court reiterated that
only in the event an Investigating Officer arrived at a finding that
the alleged crime had not been committed within his territorial
jurisdiction could the F.l.R. be transferred to the police having
jurisdiction in the matter.
D 14. Learned counsel urged that once the Investigating
Agency in respect of an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
.,..
came to a finding that it did not have territorial jurisdiction in the ·',
matter, the High Court could not have directed a fresh
investigation into the matter on the ground that it was not for the
Investigating Agency to decide the question of jurisdiction which
E
is the prerogative of the Courts.
15. Appearing for the private respondents, Mr. L.N. Rao,
Senior Advocate, submitted that except for disbursement of the
loan amount to the appellant through the Mandvi Branch of the
Bank at Mumbai, the entire trc;insaction had been proceeded and
F dealt with at the Head Office in Ahmedabad. Even the application
for the loan had been made directly to the Head Office at
Ahmadabad instea(j of filing it in the Mandvi Branch at Mumbai.
16. On the legal question raised on behalf of the appellant,
Mr. Rao submitted that Section 156 Cr.P.C. only spelt out the
G powers of a police officer to investigate a cognizable case and
the power of a Magistrate to order such an investigation to be
}
made. In addition, it was also stipulated that no investigation by
a police officer at any stage of such investigation could be
questioned on the ground that such officer was not empowered
to conduct such investigation. Mr. Rao submitted that the
H
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 731
GUJARAT AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
decisions cited by Mr. Syed did not really make any difference A
to the appellant's case as t.he power of the Investigating Officer
to transfer an investigation, which he did not have the jurisdiction
to investigate, to a police officer having such jurisdiction, was
never at issue in the instant case. What was at issue was the
Investigating Officer's decision not to conduct an investigation
B
despite an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmedabad, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that
he did not have territorial jurisdiction to undertake such
investigation. Mr. Rao submitted that an investigation ordered
--' under the provisions of Sub-Section (4) of Section 181 Cr.P.C.
would have to be read in that context. e---
17. Appearing for the State, Mr. Hemantika Wahi, learned
Advocate, submitted that the State was ready to carry out
whatever directions that may be given by the Court in regard to
" the investigation directed to be conducted by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahmedabad. D
18. The principal question which emerges from the
. submissions made on behalf of the parties is whether in regard
to an order passed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the police
authorities empowered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 156
can unilaterally decide not to conduct an investigation on the
E
ground that they had no territorial jurisdiction to do so.
19. Section 156 Cr. P. C. which is the focus of consideration
in this case, reads as under :-
"156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable
cases.
F
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the
order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case
which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within
the limits of such station would have power to inquire into
or try under the provisions of Chapter XI 11.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall G
• at any stage be called in question on the ground that the
" case was one, which such officer was not empowered under
this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may
order such an investigation as above mentioned." H
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 20. From the aforesaid provisions it is quite clear that a
police officer in charge of a police station can, without the order
of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable offence which a Court
having jurisdiction over such police station can inquire into or try
under Chapter Ill of the Code. Sub-section (2) of Section 156
ensures that once an investigation is commenced under Sub-
B
section (1), the same is not interrupted on the ground that the :--
police officer was not empowered under the Section to
investigate. It is in the nature of a "savings clause" in respect of
investigations undertaken in respect of cognizable offences. In
addition to the powers vested in a Magistrate empowered under ;..
c Section 190 Cr.P .C. to order an investigation under Sub-section
(1) of section 202 Cr.P.C., Sub-section (3) of Section 156 also
empowers such Magistrate to order an investigation on a
complaint filed before him.
21. As far as the reference made to Sub-section (4) of
D Section 181 is concerned, the same appears to be
misconceived having regard to the contents thereof which read
as follows:-
"181. Place of trial in case of certain offences. ...
(1) xxxxxxxxx
E (2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxxxxxxxx
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal
breach of trust may he inquired into or tried by a court within
whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any
F part of the property which is the subject of the offence was
received or retained, or was required to be returned or
accounted for, by the accused person."
Sub-section (4) only indicates that an inquiry or trial of an
offence of criminal rnisappropriation or criminal breach of trust
can be conducted by a Court within whose jurisdiction the offence
G had been committed or any part of the property forming the .
subject niatter of the offence is received or retained or was
required to be returned or accounted for by the accused person.
~
The said provisions do not account for a stage contemplated on
account of an order made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
H 22. In the instant case, the stage contemplated under
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 733
GUJARAT AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
;
Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. has not yet been reached. Prior to taking A
If cognizance on the complaint filed by the Bank, the learned Chief
~
Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, had directed an
inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and as it appears, a final
report was submitted by the Investigating Agency entrusted with
~
the investigation stating that since the alleged transactions had B
taken place within the territorial limits of the city of Mumbai, no
cause of action had arisen in the State of Gujarat and, therefore,
the investigation should be transferred to the police agency in
Mumbai. There seems to be little doubt that the Economic
Offences Wing, State CID (Crime), which had been entrusted
with the investigation, had upon initial inquiries recommended c
.-'I
that the investigation be transferred to the police agency of
Mumbai. In our view, both the trial Court as well as the Bombay
High Court had correctly interpreted the provisions of Section
mt 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 D
complete investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that
the offences had been committed beyond its territorial
4i
-'(
jurisdiction. 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 E
., 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 F
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
-t investigate the matter.
G
~ 23. Having regard to the law in existence today, we are
.....• unable to accept Mr. Syed's submissions that the High Court had
·~
erred in upholding the order of the learned Trial Judge when the
entire cause of action in respect of the offence had allegedly
arisen outside the State of Gujarat. We are also unable to accept
the submission that it was for the Investigating Officer in the H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A course of investigation to decide whe!her a particular Court had ~-
jurisdiction to entertain a complaint or not. It is the settled law that
the complaint made in a criminal case follows the place where
..
the cause arises, but the distinguishing feature in the instant case
is that the stage of taking cognizance was yet to arrive. The
Investigating Agency was required to place the facts elicited
B
during the investigation before the Court in order to enable the
Court to come to a conclusion as to whether it had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint or not. Without conducting such an
investigation, it was improper on the part of the Investigating
Agency to forward its report with the observation that since the
c entire cause of action for the alleged offence had purportedly ·
arisen in the city of Mumbai within the State of Maharashtra, the
investigation should be transferred to the concerned Police
Station in Mumba!. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. contemplates a stage
where the learned Magistrate is not convinced as to whether
D process should issue on the facts disclosed in the complaint.
Once the facts are rece!ved, it is for the Magistrate to decide·
.. . ;,
his next course of action. In this case, there are materials to show
>-
that the appellant had filed his application for loan with the Head
Office of the Bank at Ahmedabad and that the processing and
the sanction of the loan was also done in Ahmedabad which
E clearly indicates that the major part of the cause of action for the
complaints arose within the jurisdiction of the Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Ahmedabad. It was not, therefore, desirable on the
part of the Investigating Agency to make an observation that it
did not have territorial jurisdiction to proceed with the
F investigation, which was required to be transferred to the Police
Station having jurisdiction to do so.
24. On the materials before him the learned Magistrate was
fully justified in rejecting the Final Report submitted by the
Economic Offences Wing, State CID (Crime) and to order a fresh
investigation into the allegations made on behalf of the Bank. The
G
Hig.h Court, therefore, did not commit any error in upholding the
views expressed by the Trial Court. As mentioned hereinbefore,
.•·
Section 181(4) Cr.P.C. deals with the Court's powers to inquire
or try an offence of criminal misappropriation or of a criminal
breach of trust i.f the same has been committed or any part of
H the property, which is the subject of the offence, is received or
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 735
GUJARAT AND ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
-I retained within the local jurisdiction of the said Court. A
.... j 25. The various decisions cited by Mr. Syed, and in
particular the decision in Satvinder Kaur's case (supra) provide
-an insight into the views held by the Supreme Court on the
accepted position that the Investigating Officer was entitled to
f
I
transfer an investigation to a Police Station having jurisdiction B:
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
-4 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 c
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 D
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.
26. We, therefore, are not inclined to entertain the appeal
E
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 156 CrPC"Sign in to search