Back
2010 (1) GCD 526 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi
Hrishikesh S/o Rajgopalan Prabhu & Others
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others
Criminal Misc. Application No. 12361 of 20081—Decided on 27/10/2009
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974) — FIR — Quashing of — Police Station has no jurisdiction — Finding as to — Sustainability — The main contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is that alleged incidents of violence have taken place either at Bangalur, Karnataka or Kerala but complaint is filed at a Police Station in Gujarat with ulterior motive only because Respondent No. 3 happens to be an Administrative Officer in Gujarat cadre — The intention to file FIR at a Police Station in Gujarat is also to implicate even family members namely mother-in-law and sister-in-laws — The Police Station in Gujarat having no territorial jurisdiction the FIR is liable to quashed and set aside — Considering the facts of the case in entirely Court held that contention of learned Counsel for petitioners is without any force and unacceptable — The SHO of the Police Station where complaint/FIR is filed has statutory authority to investigate any cognizable offence for which FIR is lodge — After investigation if Investigating Officer finds that he has no territorial jurisdiction then he may submit report and forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence — Court, therefore, found no merits in matter.
Held :
The SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which an FIR is lodged.
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.
After investigation is over, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR 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.” [Para 22]
Law Laid Down :
SHO has statutory authority under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which FIR is lodged.
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Present petition is filed by as many as five petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is husband, Petitioner No. 2 is father-in-law of Respondent No. 2- wife of Respondent No. 1, Petitioner No. 3 is mother-in-law of Respondent No. 2 and wife of Petitioner No. 2 and mother of Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are sisters of Petitioner No. 1 and daughters of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The relief sought for in this petition reads as under:—
“25.b. Be Pleased to quash the First Information Report lodged with the Mahila Police Station, Ahmedabad City, Ahmedabad recorded as CR-I No. 54 of 2008.”
2. This petition was filed on 29.9.2008, affirmed on 6th October, 2008. The matter was taken up for consideration on 17.10.2008, wherein this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela) passed the following order:
“None present for the petitioners even as the matter was called out twice during the course of the day. Even on earlier occasion no one has remained present for the petitioners. Therefore, dismissed.”
Criminal Misc. Application No. 13974 of 2008 was filed for restoration of the main matter by recalling the order passed by this Court on 17th October 2008. That application was allowed by order dated 24.10.2008 (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela). The order reads as under:
“The application is allowed and original Criminal Misc. Application No. 12361 of 2008 is ordered to be restored and listed for admission hearing on 10.11.2008.”
On 10.11.2008, the Court passed the following order (Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.H. Waghela):
“Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.V. Raju for the respondents.
RULE returnable on 27.11.2008. Learned A.P.P. Ms. M.L. Shah waives service for Respondent No. 1. Learned Advocate Mr. Purohit appears and waives service for respondents No. 2 and 3. Ad-interim relief in terms of Para 25(d). It was agreed that, as far as practicable, the matter may be heard for final disposal on the returnable date.” (emphasis supplied).
3. As the matter was not heard on the returnable date, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were constrained to file Criminal Misc. Application No. 9071 of 2009 praying for vacating the interim relief. The prayer reads as under:-
“(5)(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to vacate the ad-interim relief granted by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 10.11.2008 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12361 of 2008 (at ANNEXURE-I hereto).”
Today, the main matter is also notified along with Criminal Misc. Application filed for vacating of interim relief. Taking into consideration the nature of the controversy involved in the matter and taking into consideration the order passed by this Court as back as on 10.11.2008 (almost one year back), it is deemed proper to take up the matter for final hearing.
4. Mr. Mangukia, learned Advocate for the petitioners, vehemently argued that the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, is absolutely malicious and is filed only with an object to harass not only the Petitioner No. 1- husband but also the aged parents, particularly the father-in-law aged about 76 old and who has ‘retired from business’, mother-in-law aged about 66 years and two sisters-in-law who are already married and settled at their marital home (emphasis supplied).
5. Learned Advocate for petitioners, to place the aforesaid submissions more effectively, read the contents of Paras 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the petition. The same are reproduced for ready reference.
“3. The petitioners state that the Petitioner No. 1 is a Software Engineer. After having completed graduation in Electronics Communication from Manipal Institute of Technology, the petitioner worked with several software companies and at present the Petitioner No. 1 is working in Tata Consultancy Services Limited at Bengaluru.
4. The petitioners state that the Petitioner No. 2 is at present residing at Swargath Madam, Lokmaley village, Kodungallor. The Petitioner No. 2 is aged about 76 years. The Petitioner No. 2 is attending his industrial busine
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
