http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  839 of 2008

PETITIONER: Naresh Kavarchand Khatri

RESPONDENT: State of Gujarat & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT                                                      REPORTABLE

                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

            CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 839              OF 2008               (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1944 of 2007)

Naresh Kavarchand Khatri                            ... Appellant

                              Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr.                                     ... Respondents

                              WITH

            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 840              OF 2008               (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2258 of 2007)

                         JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1.    Leave granted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

                                    2

2.    Whether the High Court has the requisite jurisdiction to transfer an

investigation from one Police Station to another is the core question

involved in these two appeals which arise out of judgment and order dated

28.12.2006 in Special Criminal Appeal Nos.2272 and 2271 of 2006.

3.    Appellant lodged a First Information Report before the detective

Crime Branch, Police Station, Vadodara City under Sections 406, 420 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents. According to the

appellants, the respondent had assured that the child of the first informants

would be admitted in their institution and on that pretext, collected a huge

amount from them. The children of the first informant took admission after

depositing the admission fee and miscellaneous charges etc. However, their

admission was later on cancelled.

4.    The FIR was lodged on 23.12.2006. Vadadora Police initiated the

investigation. Applications for transfer of investigation were filed before

the High Court. On 28.12.2006, the High Court passed the impugned order

in the following terms :

            "Rule. Mr.P.D. Bhate Ld. APP waive service on              behalf of opponent State. At the joint request of              the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing              today.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

                                    3

            By way of these petitions the petitioner has prayed              to transfer the Investigation of complaint being              ICR No.89 of 2006 and 90/2006 registered with              DCB Police Station, Vadodara city to another              police station having territorial jurisdiction or to              CID Crime or any other independent agency.              Heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties Ld.APA has              stated that respondent State has no objection if the              complaint in question is transferred to some              authority as prayed for.              In that view of the matter Complaint No.ICR 89 of              2006 and 90 of 2006 registered with DCB Police              Station, Vadodara city are ordered to be              transferred to another police station within whose              jurisdiction the institution is situated. With the              said direction, the petition stand disposed of. Rule              is made absolute."

5.    The informant was not impleaded as a party therein. No notice was

issued on the said appeals. No reason has been assigned. The Court did not

advert to the question as to whether it had any jurisdiction to pass the said

order. Why such a concession was made by the learned APP on the very

first day of hearing is not known.

     The power of the court to interfere with an investigation is limited.

The police authorities, in terms of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, exercise a statutory power. The Code of Criminal procedure has

conferred power on the statutory authorities to direct transfer of an

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

                                     4

investigation from one Police Station to another in the event it is found that

they do not have any jurisdiction in the matter. The Court should not

interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto. If it is found that

the investigation has been conducted by an Investigating Officer who did

not have any territorial jurisdiction in the matter, the same should be

transferred by him to the police station having the requisite jurisdiction.

6.    It is of some significance that the High Court exercised its

jurisdiction even without notice to the petitioner. The investigation has to

be carried out on the basis of the allegations made. The first informant is

required to be examined; statements of his witnesses were required to be

taken; the accused were also required to be interrogated.

     The undue haste with which the High Court has exercised its

jurisdiction, in our opinion, should not be encouraged. Whether an officer

incharge of a police station has the requisite jurisdiction to make

investigation or not will depend upon a large number of factors including

those contained in Sections 177, 178 and 181 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. In a case where a trial can be held in any of the places falling

within the purview of the aforementioned provisions, investigation can be

conducted by the concerned officer in-charge of the police station which has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

                                    5

jurisdiction to investigate in relation thereto. Sub-section (4) of Section 181

of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code would also be relevant therefor.

     We need not dilate more on analyses of the aforementioned

provisions as the said question has been gone into by this Court on more

than one occasion.

     In Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) : 1999 (8) SCC

728 this Court noticing various provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure opined:

            "12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would              make it clear that Section 177 provides for              "ordinary" place of enquiry or trial. Section 178,              inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial              when it is uncertain in which of several local areas              an offence was committed or where the offence              was committed partly in one local area and partly              in another and where it consisted of several acts              done in different local areas, it could be enquired              into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over              any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of              investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does              not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the              crime."

     It was furthermore held :

            "15. Hence, in the present case, the High Court              committed a grave error in accepting the              contention of the respondent that the investigating              officer had no jurisdiction to investigate the              matters on the alleged ground that no part of the              offence was committed within the territorial              jurisdiction of the police station at Delhi. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

                                    6

           appreciation of the evidence is the function of the             courts when seized of the matter. At the stage of             investigation, the material collected by an             investigating officer cannot be judicially             scrutinized for arriving at a conclusion that the             police station officer of a particular police station             would not have territorial jurisdiction. In any case,             it has to be stated that in view of Section 178(c) of             the Criminal Procedure Code, when it is uncertain             in which of the several local areas an offence was             committed, or where it consists of several acts             done in different local areas, the said offence can             be enquired into or tried by a court having             jurisdiction over any of such local areas.             Therefore, to say at the stage of investigation that             the SHO, Police Station Paschim Vihar, New             Delhi was not having territorial jurisdiction, is on             the face of it, illegal and erroneous. That apart,             Section 156(2) contains an embargo that no             proceeding of a police officer shall be challenged             on the ground that he has no territorial power to             investigate. The High Court has completely             overlooked the said embargo when it entertained             the petition of Respondent 2 on the ground of             want of territorial jurisdiction."

7.    Yet again in Asit Bhattacharjee vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha : (2007) 5

SCC 786 this Court clearly held :-

           "32. No such explicit prayer was made by the             respondents in their writ petition, although a             prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of             mandamus, directing the State of West Bengal to             transfer Case No. 381 to the State of U.P., had             been made. The question of the State of West             Bengal’s having a legal duty in that behalf did not             arise. Only in the event an investigating officer,             having regard to the provisions contained in             Sections 154, 162, 177 and 178 of the Code of             Criminal Procedure had arrived at a finding that             the alleged crime was not committed within his             territorial jurisdiction, could forward the first             information report to the police having jurisdiction             in the matter.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

                                     7

             33. Stricto sensu, therefore, the High Court should               not have issued such a direction. Assuming,               however, that the High Court could mould the               relief, in our opinion, it was not a case where on               the face of the allegations made in the complaint               petition, the same could be said to be mala fide. A               major part of the cause of action might have arisen               in the State of U.P., but the same by itself would               not mean that the Calcutta Court had no               jurisdiction whatsoever."

8.    Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Huzefa Ahmed,

appearing for the respondent No.2 in each of the appeals, however, brought

to our notice that charge-sheet has already been submitted.             It was

contended that proper investigation has been carried out in the matter and

even the accused respondent had been taken into custody and, thus, this

Court, in a situation of this nature, should not exercise its jurisdiction under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

9.    Investigation has been carried out by the officer incharge of Police

Station Waghodia only pursuant to the order of the High Court. If the order

of the High Court is to be set aside, the investigation must be held to have

been carried out without any jurisdiction. We are not, herein concerned

with the quality of the investigation but the effect of the order passed by the

High Court.     We do not know as to whether proper investigation as

contended, has in fact been considered at by the court or not.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

                                    8

10.   The first information report was lodged on 23rd December, 2006. The

High Court appears to have been approached within a few days, namely 26th

December, 2008.

     The impugned order has been passed on 28th December, 2008. The

first information report prima facie shows that a part of cause of jurisdiction

arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police Station. We fail

to understand as to how at such an early stage, the investigation should have

been directed to be transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia

Police Station where the ‘institution’ in question is situated is within the

jurisdiction of Vadodara (District) and is, therefore, not a case where the

accused would have been even otherwise gravely prejudiced in joining

investigation.

11.   We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should

refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge

sheets filed by the Wagodhia Police Station stand set aside. The concerned

Police Officer of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate

investigation in the matter in accordance with law.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

                                   9

     Any document collected as also the statements of any witnesses

recorded by the officer in-charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may

be sent to the incharge of Vadodara Police Station.

12.   The appeals are allowed with the aforementioned observations and

directions.

                                        .......................................J.                                         (S.B. SINHA)

                                        ..........................................J.                                         (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) New Delhi May 8, 2008