Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
ABDUL RAHEEM - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Writ No. 414 of 2017
Decided On : 23-03-2018
Subject
Criminal Law - Investigation and Reporting
Act Referred
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.307, S.34
RAJASTHAN POLICE RULES : R.6.4, R.6.5, R.6.7, R.6.8, R.5.5(1)(b)
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 156(1) – Jurisdiction – Evidence – Territorial - In view of above judgments counsel for petitioner submits that the action taken by Superintendent of Police was not proper and directions sought by way of filing this writ petition may kindly be issued - In fact this Rule is applicable to FIR and not to investigation - Issue for consideration before this Court is about competence of Investigating Officer to investigate matter if occurrence has taken place out of territorial jurisdiction of concerned police station – Held, In view of above writ petition is allowed to effect that FIR be forthwith forwarded to police station having territorial jurisdiction over matter and to conclude investigating at earliest within a period of two months from today as matter is already pending for more than a year - Cannot be submitted on account of lack of territorial jurisdiction - At first available occasion concerned police station where FIR was lodged should have forwarded it to police station having territorial jurisdiction – petition dismissed
The court held that the investigation and filing of a negative final report by the police station lacking territorial jurisdiction was improper. The FIR should be transferred to the police station with proper jurisdiction, and investigation should be completed within two months. The decision emphasizes that police rules do not permit submitting a negative report solely due to jurisdiction issues, and the investigation should proceed with the correct territorial authority. The petition was allowed accordingly.
Adarsh Sidhu, B.N Sandhu, Bundi Then, Eliyas Ali, Advocates.
Deepak Maheshwari, J.
Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General-cum-Government Advocate appearing for the State.
2. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents No. 1 to 4 to forward the material collected during investigation of FIR No. 236/2017 P.S. Keshavraipatan to the police station having territorial jurisdiction in the matter. Direction has also been sought for initiating disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4 for non-compliance of the statutory provisions while giving approval to submit the negative final report before the Court concerned instead of sending the matter to the concerned police station having territorial jurisdiction.
3. Briefly stated, the facts revealed from the writ petition and the documents annexed are that FIR No. 236/2017 was filed by the complainant-petitioner at police station Keshavraipatan for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC in which final (negative report) was submitted by SHO, P.S. Keshavraipatan before the Court on the ground that the offence was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. An FR (gair ilaka) was submitted, though it was concluded by Investigating Officer that the offence under Section 307 IPC has taken place in the territorial jurisdiction of police station railway colony, Kota. This was done under the approval of Superintendent of Police, Bundi vide letter dated 30.06.2017. Against the said FR, complainant preferred a protest petition before the Court of ACJM. Vide order dated 01.09.2017 the case diary was returned back to SHO, P.S. Keshoraipatan with the direction to get the investigation conducted by the officer in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Again FR (negative report) came to be filed before the Court on 10.10.2017. This time also direction was issued by Superintendent of Police, Bundi on 26.09.2017 to SHO, P.S. Keshoraipatan to submit FR (gair ilaka).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Rule 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 & 6.8 of Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, the action taken by Superintendent of Police, Bundi was not justified. Reliance has also been placed by learned counsel on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), (1999) 8 SCC 728 and Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009).
5. In view of above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action taken by the Superintendent of Police, Bundi was not proper and the directions sought by way of filing this writ petition may kindly be issued.
6. Per contra, learned AAG has stated that in cases wherein the police station is lacking territorial jurisdiction, the FR (negative report) is submitted before the Court concerned on this ground alone. This is established practice being followed through out the State of Rajasthan. He has referred to the Ruls 5.5(1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 in this regard. Learned AAG submits that after the directions having been sought from the Court having jurisdiction, further investigation is conducted by the police station having territorial jurisdiction. In this regard, letter dated 22.03.2018 issued by Additional Director General, police station, CID Crime Branch has also been referred.
7. In my view Rule 5.5(1) (b) of the Rules of 1965 is not applicable in this case. In fact, this Rule is applicable to the FIR and not to investigation. The issue for consideration before this Court is about the competence of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter, if the occurrence has taken place out of the territorial jurisdiction of concerned police station.
8. Rule 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 & 6.8 of the Rules of 1965 governed this issue. These Rules are as under:-
"6.4 Where offence appears to have occurred in other police station;
(1) If a police officer after registering a case and com
