IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.65614 OF 2016(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
NETHRAVATHI R WIFE OF RAJESH PALANI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.10(OLD NO.3) KANAKAGIRI M C M FARM ROAD VIDYARANYAPURAM KHILLE MOHALLA, MYSORE-570001 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MYSORE CITY MYSORE-570 001 2. HOUSE STATION OFFICER VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY MYSORE-570 008 3. HOUSE STATION OFFICER KRISHNARAJA PURA POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY MYSORE-570 008 4. REVANNA SON OF SANNAIAH, AGED: MAJOR CONVENER DALITA JAGRUTHI SAMITHI #55, 10TH CROSS NEW MODEL HOUSE ASHOKAPURAM MYSORE-570 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 TO R3 SRI: MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE AND QUASH ANNEXURE-L THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.195/2016 REGISTERED WITH THE R-3 POLICE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.195/2016 registered for the offences punishable under section 419, 420, 468, 471 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. Though the petitioner has raised various contentions in the petition, yet, in the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions only on the issue of the jurisdiction of Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysore City to entertain the complaint and to investigate into the matter.
3. Learned counsel would submit that the allegations made by the fourth respondent in the complaint pertain to the registration of immovable properties situate within the limits of Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysore City. Therefore, Krishnaraja Police, Mysore City have no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 however has disputed the contentions urged by the petitioner and would submit that the sale deed in question is registered in the office of Sub-Registrar of Krishnaraja Police Station, Mysore City and therefore, the third respondent viz., Krishnaraja Police Station derive jurisdiction to investigate into the matter.
5. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.4. Registration of the property could be done in any Sub-Registrar’s office within State. The same do not confer jurisdiction on the respective Police Station. The Police Station derive jurisdiction to enquire and investigate into the criminal offence where the cause of action wholly or in part arise. The relevant statutory provision for determining the forum of adjudication finds place in Chapter XIII of the Code. Section 177 prescribes that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The place where the police have to investigate the commission of the offence cannot depend upon the sweet will of the complainant. In this context, it may be useful to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NARESH KAVARCHAND KHATRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER, reported in (2008) 8 SCC 300, wherein at para 8, it is held as under:-
8. “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 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 the very same decision, it is held that:-
“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. As per the definition of term ‘Police Station’ contained under Section 2(s) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, “police station” means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf.
7. As the local limits of the concerned Police Stations is prescribed by notification issued by the State Government, any offence that is alleged to have been committed within the limits of Police Station, it gets jurisdiction to investigate into the said offences. Since in the instant case, the property in respect of which deception and falsification is alleged to have taken place is situated within the limits at Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru, the aforesaid Police Station gets jurisdiction and hence, respondent No.3 is directed to transfer the FIR and investigation papers to Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru City for further investigation in accordance with law.
Petition stands allowed in terms of the above order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-