1. The three petitions are being decided together as they challenge the common impugned order dated 10th February, 2017 whereby on the application of respondent No. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the area of PS New Ashok Nagar directed SHO PS New Ashok Nagar to register zero FIR and thereafter to transfer the same to the concerned Police Station having jurisdiction in the matter as per procedure.

2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 10th February, 2017 despite noting the fact that there was not even a single allegation of commission of any offence within the territorial jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar and allegations related to the workplace of the complainant which is situated at Sector-11, NOIDA and not within the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar entertained the application and passed the impugned order as noted above.

3. It is submitted that a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. cannot direct registration of FIR and investigation thereon to a Station House Officer of a Police Station which does not fall within its local territorial jurisdiction. Though the learned Trial Court noted that the decisions relied upon by the respondent No.2 were not applicable to the facts of the case and no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction still proceeded to issue directions on the ground that there was no bar against the same as Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. states that any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 Cr.P.C. may order an investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and Section 190 Cr.P.C. which provides for cognizance of offence by a Magistrate does not debar a Magistrate from taking cognizance of an offence committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Orissa High Court reported as 1995 CriLJ 1486 Brij Kishore Singh & Ors. vs. Smt. Nutan Singh & Anr. and 236 (2017) DLT 612: 2017 (161) DRJ 305 Nishu Wadhwa vs. Siddharth Wadhwa & Anr. of this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. does not bar a Magistrate to issue directions to a SHO to register FIR, investigate a matter beyond its territorial jurisdiction and comply with its statutory duties. Issue of jurisdiction is relevant only at the stage of inquiry and trial and since while deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the complaint is at the pre-cognizance stage, there is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported as 1999 (8) SCC 728 Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 1999 (8) SCC 686 Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., 2001 (7) SCC 679 State of M.P. vs. Bhooraji & Ors. and 2010 (1) SCC 1 Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

5. The issue whether a Magistrate can direct registration of FIR and investigation to an officer in charge of a police station beyond its territorial jurisdiction came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 2001 (3) SCC 333 Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P., Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. The Supreme Court held that sub-section (3) of Section 156 empowers the Magistrate to order an “officer in charge of a police station” to conduct an investigation referred to in sub-section (1). The words “order such an investigation as abovementioned” in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. The two expressions “police station” and “officer in charge of a police station” have been given separate definitions in the Code in Sections 2(o) and 2(s) respectively. A place or post declared by the Government as police station, must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is in the next junior