- (1.) INVOKING section 482 CrPC the petitioners who have been arraigned as accuseds in the FIR relating to Purba Jadavpur Police Station Case No. 68 dated March 26, 2011 under section 498A/406/292/34 IPC have now approached this court for quashing of the said FIR. The only ground that has been taken in support of the prayer for quashing was this that on the face of the allegations made in the FIR, it is manifest that no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limit of the Purba Jadavpur Police Station. Admittedly, till date no charge sheet has been submitted and even after rejection of prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 1, is still absconding.
(2.) THE learned counsel of the de facto complainant and the State vehemently resisted this application. According to them, sufficient materials have been collected during investigation from which it would be evident that a prima facie case for which charge sheet has been submitted has been clearly made out. They also contended if not the entire cause of action but part of it arose within the territorial limit of the concerned police station where the case has been registered. They prayed this application to be dismissed at once.
(3.) I find this FIR is an outcome of an order passed under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar versus State of Gujarat and Ors., 2010 1 SCC(Cri) 436, the Apex Court held that it is not for the investigating agency to refrain itself from holding a proper and complete investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that offence is committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction and it is also open to a Magistrate to direct an investigation under section 156(3) CrPC without taking cognizance on the complaint and where such an order of investigation is made by a court, the police officer concerned is bound to undertake investigation and to complete the same even if he is of the view that he is not empowered. It is further held that when an FIR has been lodged the investigating agency is required to place facts elicited during investigation before the court in order to enable the court to come to a conclusion as to whether it has jurisdiction to hold the trial or not and without conducting an investigation, it is improper on the part of investigating agency to forward its report with the observation since the entire cause of action for the alleged offence arose at a different place, the investigation should be transferred to the police station within whose local limit cause of action arose. Even assuming that no part of the cause of action which gave rise to the impugned FIR was took place within the territorial limit of the concerned police station, let us now see in a similar situation what was observed by the Apex Court at paragraph 14 of its decision in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry versus Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. reported in 1999 C Cr LR (SC) 364. Which are as follows: The jurisdictional aspect becomes relevant only when the question of enquiry or trial arises. It is therefore, fallacious thinking that only a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case has the power to take cognizance of the offence. If he is a Magistrate of the first class, his power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions. After taking cognizance he may have to decide as to the court which had jurisdiction to enquire into or try the offence and that such situation would reach only during the post cognizance stage and not earlier.;