SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 123-134 of 2026 [@ SLP (Criminal) NOS. 14321-14333 of 2025]
Decided On : 08-01-2026
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 2(s) and 2(o) – Police station – There need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station – Definition clause, under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is both exhaustive and inclusive – It is exhaustive to mean, any post or any place, while it includes any local area specified by State Government – Inclusion of ‘local area’ would come within definition of place, meaning thereby, a place would include, a specified one, a town, a city, a taluk, a village, a district or even a State itself – Local area is a species of genus ‘place’. (Para 4)
(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Section 528 of BNSS] – FIR – FIRs registered for offences punishable under PC Act, have been quashed, which left investigation(s) being nipped in bud in some cases, while, in others, criminal proceedings stood terminated – High Court has undertaken said exercise, solely on the issue of jurisdiction of police station which registered FIRs – Approach of High Court is nothing but travesty of justice – If, on a hyper-technical ground, FIRs are quashed, High Court is duty-bound to lay down law with respect to jurisdiction that otherwise exists – When a Government Order is issued by way of clarification, there is no question of any retrospective application – Impugned Judgment set aside – High Court shall entertain no more challenge to FIRs. (Paras 21, 22, 24 and 27)
Facts of the case:
High Court of Andhra Pradesh through a hyper-technical approach, nullified First Information Reports registered in a batch of cases, pertaining to offences committed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which left investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in others, criminal proceedings stood terminated, led to the present appeals being filed before Supreme Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellant(s) are at liberty to proceed with the investigation. Final reports are to be filed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Appellant(s) shall not take any coercive steps by way of arresting the respondents herein. Respondents herein shall co-operate with the expeditious conclusion of the investigation.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points for constructing argument notes are as follows:
The registration of FIRs must be supported by a valid notification under the relevant law, failing which, the FIRs could be considered without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed (!) .
Effect of Government Orders and Circulars:
The issuance of such orders, especially when supported by the definition of ‘law,’ can establish jurisdiction for FIR registration and subsequent investigation (!) (!) .
Impact of State Reorganization:
Circulars issued under the Reorganization Act, which interpret the scope of ‘law’ to include notifications and orders, imply that offices declared as police stations continue to have jurisdiction unless legally revoked or replaced (!) (!) .
Practical and Legal Approach:
The failure to issue or recognize a specific notification under Section 2(s) of the CrPC does not necessarily negate jurisdiction if there is a valid order or circular supporting the office’s status as a police station (!) (!) .
Consequences for FIRs and Investigations:
The courts should avoid hyper-technical dismissals that hinder justice and should instead interpret the law and supporting government orders to uphold the validity of FIRs and investigations (!) (!) .
Final Directions:
These points collectively form the basis for argument notes emphasizing that jurisdiction and the validity of FIRs depend on the proper issuance and recognition of government orders and notifications, which, in this case, support the continuation of jurisdiction for the offices declared as police stations, despite the absence of a formal Gazette notification at certain points.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel and learned Counsel appearing for the appellant(s) and respondent(s). We have perused the documents placed before us, along with the written submissions made.
3. A helping hand, extended by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh through a hyper-technical approach, in nullifying the First Information Reports (hereinafter referred to as “FIRs”) registered in a batch of cases, pertaining to offences committed under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “PC Act”), which left the investigation(s) being nipped in the bud in some cases, while, in the others, criminal proceedings stood terminated, led to the present appeals being filed before us.
DISCUSSION OF RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS, GOVERNMENT ORDERS AND CIRCULARS:
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973
4. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC, 1973”) was replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “BNSS, 2023”). As the relevant provisions, in both the Statutes, are pari materia, we would only deal with the former enactment for the sake of brevity.
Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973:
***
(s) “police station” means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;”
(emphasis supplied)
Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973 defines a ‘police station’. It concerns itself with two distinct and separate categories, namely, ‘post’ and ‘place’ Accordingly, a ‘post,’ held by a police officer, can be defined as a police station, and so also a ‘place’. In a given case, there can be a combination of both. The definition clause, under Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, is both exhaustive and inclusive. It is exhaustive to mean, any post or any place, while it includes any local area specified by the State Government. The inclusion of ‘local area’ would come within the definition of place, meaning thereby, a place would include, a specified one, a town, a city, a taluk, a village, a district or even a State itself. Therefore, a local area is a species of the genus ‘place’. The declaration, that is warranted, under the definition clause, is rather formal. It can be specific, either to a place or to a post, or general, to a group of posts or places. Suffice it is to state that, under the definition, there need not be a specific place to be declared as a police station, as even a post being held by a police officer would constitute a police station.
Section 2(o) of the CrPC, 1973:
***
(o) “officer in charge of a police station” includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station-house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station-house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;”
This provision defines an “officer in charge of a police station.” This is an inclusive definition, which refers to a police officer at the station house, placed next in rank to the officer in charge, and is above the rank of constable, unless the State Government otherwise so directs.
G.O.Ms. No. 268 HOME (PSC) DEPARTMENT dated 12.09.2003
5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification, by way of the aforesaid Government Order, declaring the offices of Anti-Corruption Bureau (A.C.B) as Police Stations, with their respective jurisdiction.
| GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh - Declaration of Offices of Anti- Corruption Bureau of Police Stations with their jurisdiction. Notification - Issued. HOME (PSC) DEPARTME | |||
State of Punjab and Others vs. Balbir Singh and Others
Ranjan Sinha and Another vs. Ajay Kumar Vishwakarma and Others
State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Lafarge Dealers Assn. and others
State, Central Bureau of Investigation v. A. Satish Kumar And Others
(1) FIR – If, on a hyper-technical ground, FIRs are quashed, High Court is duty-bound to lay down law with respect to jurisdiction that otherwise exists.(2) When a Government Order is issued by way o....
CBI investigation – Govt. orders according general consent to exercise powers and jurisdiction under DSPE Act against private persons for alleged offences whether acting separately or in conjunction ....
State notification deemed to amend cognizability status of offenses under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita; mala fide motives behind F.I.R. questioned.
Point of law : The rule of construction laid down in Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also requires that reference to the repealed enactment made in any instrument be construed as reference....
Point of law: Inherent power of a High Court – Rejection of quash petition - complaint clearly makes out commission of cognizable offences both under the PC Act as well as IPC, it is impermissible to....
The ACB in Rajasthan can investigate and file charges against Central Government employees for corruption if committed within state jurisdiction, despite CBI’s authority.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.