The main legal point established is that the jurisdiction of the Court to try an offence is determined by the place where the offence was committed, and the power of the Police to investigate a cognizable offence is co-extensive with that of the Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of the Police Station.

ORDER :

The 3rd accused in SC No.201 of 2023 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Court (for the trial of cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual violence against women and children), Ernakulam (hereinafter referred as Additional District Court, Ernakulam), has filed this Crl.M.C., invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash Annexure-A1 final report in Crime No.1292 of 2011 of Vizhinjam Police Station, registered under Section 376 read with Section 34 of IPC, and the proceedings in SC No.201 of 2023, and also for a declaration that the Additional District Court has no jurisdiction to try that case.

2. The prosecution allegation is that, on 13.12.2011 at 8.15 a.m., CW2 the victim girl, left her house at Thiruvananthapuram and proceeded to Ernakulam, and while travelling in the bus, she got acquainted with the 1st accused, and under his instigation, she alighted at Palluruthy along with him, and from there, she was taken to various places at Ernakulam by the 1st accused and his friends (A2 to A4), and they sexually assaulted her and committed rape on her. Thereafter, she was abandoned at Ernakulam Railway Station.

3. The father of the victim lodged a man missing complaint before Vizhinjam Police Station on 14.12.2011 and Crime No.1292 of 2011 under Section 57(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act was registered on its basis, and SI of Police, Vizhinjam started investigation in that crime. Meanwhile, the victim girl, who was found in Railway Station, Ernakulam, was taken custody by Police and she was kept in Women Police Station at Ernakulam. On getting information that the missing girl was kept in Women Police Station, Ernakulam, Vizhinjam Police proceeded to Ernakulam, and brought the victim girl to Vizhinjam Police Station and recorded her statement. Since her statement revealed sexual assault and rape against accused Nos. 1 to 4, she was sent for medical examination, and the FIR, which was registered under Section 57(1)(a) of the Kerala Police Act was altered, incorporating Section 376 r/w Section 34 of IPC, and investigation was continued. On completing investigation, final report was filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. That case was committed for trial to POCSO Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and it was made over to the Special Court, Neyyattinkara, for trial.

4. The petitioner herein filed a discharge petition before the Special Court on the ground that, Vizhinjam Police had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct the investigation. His discharge petition was dismissed as per Annexure-A2 order. Subsequently, on request, the case was transferred to Ernakulam, and now it is pending before Additional District Court, Ernakulam, as SC No.201 of 2023.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that, Vizhinjam Police had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct investigation into an offence, which was committed beyond its territorial limits. In the case on hand, the offences alleged occurred at Ernakulam, within the territorial limits of the Court at Ernakulam, and Police within the local limits of that Court alone could have investigated that crime. So, according to him, Vizhinjam Police had no territorial jurisdiction to conduct investigation in that crime.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying on the decision of this Court in T.P Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and another (2007 (3) KHC 975), to say that, the territorial jurisdiction of a Police Station for the purpose of investigation is co-extensive with that of appropriate Court, which is competent to try the offence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw attention of this Court to Section 156 of Cr.P.C to substantiate his argument which reads thus :

“156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.-

(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any co