2026 Supreme(Gau) 1094

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Candid Drug Distributors And 2 Ors – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam And 3 Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 2779 of 2013  
Decided On : 16-06-2026

Where an investigating agency lacks territorial nexus with the constituent ingredients of an alleged offence, the criminal process constitutes an abuse of law. Constitutional courts may, under Article 226, direct the transfer of investigation to the police station possessing lawful jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 177, 178 and 179 - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings - Investigation - Transfer of - Principles of - Jurisdiction in criminal law is determined by the situs where the constituent ingredients of an alleged offence occur - Exception to the general rule under provisions of the Code does not permit investigation in a forum lacking any territorial nexus to the commission of the offence. (Paras 14, 16, 17)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Power of High Court under Article 226(2) is constitutional and plenary - To be exercised to prevent abuse of process and ensure public authorities act within the bounds of law - Court is not exercising powers of transfer under the Code, but a constitutional power to prevent manifest injustice where an investigative process is set in motion before an authority having no territorial nexus with the alleged crime. (Paras 27, 32, 43)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of a criminal complaint alleging offences such as cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust in the operation of a distribution agency. The complainant had initiated the complaint at a location where its registered office was situated, despite all alleged acts of document fabrication, inventory diversion, and misappropriation occurring in another territory. The petitioners contended that the investigative authority lacked the requisite territorial jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that none of the constituent ingredients of the alleged offences occurred within the territorial limits of the jurisdiction where the complaint was filed. The court held that the mere presence of a registered office or the occurrence of financial consequences at a particular place does not constitute an ingredient of the offence for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction.

Issues: The central issues addressed were whether a criminal investigation can be sustained in a forum lacking any territorial nexus to the constituent ingredients of the offence and whether the court could invoke its constitutional jurisdiction to transfer the investigation to the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The criminal process must be consistent with the statutory scheme regarding territorial jurisdiction. Where an investigation is instituted in a forum with no nexus to the essential ingredients of the crime, it transcends a technical jurisdictional objection and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. Constitutional courts are empowered to direct the transfer of an investigation to the authority possessing the closest territorial nexus to ensure procedural fairness and prevent harassment.

Result: Petition partly allowed; the complaint remains valid, but the investigation is directed to be transferred to the police authority having proper territorial jurisdiction.