Spread the love

Respect of a bride in her matrimonial home glorifies the solemnity and sanctity of marriage, reflects the sensitivity of a civilized society and, eventually, epitomizes her aspirations dreamt of in nuptial bliss. But, the manner in which sometimes the brides are treated in many a home by the husband, in-laws r of great sand the relatives creates a feeling of emotional numbness in the society.

~ Justice Dipak Misra.[1]

INTRODUCTION:

In the Honble’ Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Appeal (crl.)  1031 of 1999

Citation: 1999 Supp(3) SCR 348

Bench: DB

            K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Decided on: 05/10/1999
Petitioner(S): SATVINDER KAUR      

VERSUS

Respondent(S): STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ANR.

BACKGROUND:

  • The appellant was married to Rajinder Singh- Respondent no. 2 on December 9, 1990 in Delhi.
  • Their daughter was born on 19th December, 1992, and she contended that on 19th January, 1992, she was thrown out from the matrimonial home in Patiala with 4 weeks baby girl.
  • On the same day, that is, 19th January, 1992 at 3.40 p.m., a complaint bearing no. DD no. 18 was lodged by her at P.S. Kotwali, Patiala making various allegations of torture and dowry demand against her husband and parents-in-law.
  • She then moved to her parents house in Delhi. On 30th April, 1992, a complaint was lodged against her husband in the Women Cell, Delhi. Subsequently, on 23rd January, 1993, the impugned FIR no. 34 of 1993 under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C. for the alleged occurrence dated 9th December, 1990 at Patiala was lodged at Police Station, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
  • Rajinder Singh, respondent no. 2 was arrested on 4th February, 1993 at Patiala and certain recoveries were effected and he was brought to Delhi and produced before the Metropolitan magistrate, who remanded him to judicial custody and, thereafter, released him on bail on 9th February, 1993.
  • He than filed petition in Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the FIR no. 34 of 1993 on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint were false and mala fide.
  • On 12th October, 1993, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the High Court held “since the return of stridhan and accounting thereof is being sought in Delhi, the Courts at Delhi will have the jurisdiction to try the case.” Hence, the petition was dismissed.
  • The petition challenging the judgement of Delhi high court was filed in this Hon’ble Supreme Court to which it set aside the orders of Delhi High Court and matter was remitted for fresh consideration on the points raised by the respondent in the petition.

ISSUES RAISED:

Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the FIR on the ground that Delhi Police Station did not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence?

STATUTES CONCERNED:

Article 156, 482, 170 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

These are read as follows: –

156. Police officer’ s power to investigate cognizable case.

(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 XIII.

(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall 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.[2]

482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.[3]

170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is sufficient.

(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.

(2) When the officer in charge of a police station forward an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the cage as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused.

(3) If the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons.

(4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report.[4]

INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARTICULAR CASE:

The findings given by the High Court are, on the face of it, illegal and erroneous because:

(1) The S.H.O. has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an F.I.R. is lodged.

(2) At the stage of investigation, there is no question of interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Investigating Officer has no territorial jurisdiction.

(3) After investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the F.I.R. has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report accordingly under Section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence.

SIMILAR CASES:

The High Court had held that the statutory powers of investigation given to the police under Chapter XIV were not available in respect of an offence triable under the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949 and hence the investigation was without jurisdiction. With this interpretation, which has been put on the statutory duties and powers of the police and of the powers of the Court, we are in accord. The High Court was in error therefore in interfering with the powers of the police in investigating into the offence which was alleged in the information sent to the Officer-in-charge of the police station.[5]

It is also settled by a long course of decision of this Court that for the purpose of exercising Us power under Section 482, Cr. P,C. to quash an FIR or a complaint, the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se; it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.[6]

THE JUDGMENT:

The Hon’ble bench pronounced its order on 5th October, 1999.

In respect to the orders passed by High Court:

The High Court committed grave error in accepting the contention of the respondent that investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of 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 collected by an investigating officer cannot be judicially scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that police station officer of 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 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 inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.

Power of Police Inspector to investigate into this particular case:

It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under sub-section (1) to the extent that the Officer can investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2) makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168169 and 170Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an investigation, it appears to the Officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit for trial. 

Regarding further proceedings to investigations:

Further, the legal position is well settled that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed. If the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of an offence, the Court does not normally stop the investigation, for, to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences.[7]

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the High Court quashing the FIR is set aside. The Investigation Officer is directed to complete the investigation as early as possible.

CONCLUSION:

The High Court committed grave error in accepting the contention of te respondent that investigating officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the matters on the alleged ground that no part of the offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of police station at Delhi.

Details about the Author:

written by Madhav Puri, BA.LL.B (HONS.) 1st Year, Panjab University, Swami Sarvanand Giri, Hoshiarpur.


[1] Gurnaib Singh vs State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108.

[2]      S.156, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[3]      S.482, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[4]     S.482, of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

[5]  State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] SCR 52

[6]  Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, [1985] 2 SCC 370 at 395

[7] Re: State of West Bengal v. Swapna Kumar, [1982] 1 SCC 561


0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *