U.S.TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed for issuing an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to wash of their hands from the investigation of case crime No. 262 of 2000 under Ss. 498-A, 504/506 and 120-B, IPC and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. P. S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and commanding respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer investigation to the concerned police station Subhash Nagar, Bareilly.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is clear from the allegations of the FIR of the impugned case (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) that the alleged occurrence of the offences took place at the residence of petitioners i.e. Subhash Nagar, P. S. Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly and the First Information Report was lodged at P. S. Kotwali. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad and no offence is alleged to have been committed at Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. Therefore, the investigation of the case was to be made by the concerned police station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly. He further contended that the police of P. S. Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad has got no jurisdiction to investigate the case as per S. 156, Cr. P.C. In support of his above contention, he also placed reliance on Division Bench case of this Court in Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. (1993) 30 All Cri C 344 (Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 34048 of 1992 decided on 7/11/1992) in which it was held as below :- "Sri V. C. Tiwari assisted by Sri A. K. Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that if the entire allegations made in the first information report is taken to be correct, the police of Police Station Kotwali, Mathura has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case. It may be stated here that statement was made at the Bar that no counter-affidavit is to be filed because the arguments on the question as to whether territorial jurisdiction for investigating the case crime, if any, lies within the district of Mathura, or not would have to be decided only on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR. Section 177, Cr. P.C. says that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 156, Cr. P.C. says that for determination of local jurisdiction of a police station, the provisions of S. 177, Cr. P.C. shall have to be borrowed. This takes us to consider as to what allegations in the First Information Report in the present case are ?";