- (1.) The accused petitioner, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, has filed this criminal miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash and set aside FIR No.267/2013 registered at Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur (North) for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC at the instance of respondent Shri Kushal Chand Dugar. The petition has mainly been filed on the ground that the aforesaid police station or any other police station in the State of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to investigate the case because the aforesaid offences or any of them has not been committed within the territorial limits of the aforesaid police station or even in the State of Rajasthan. It has been made clear on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings is not challenging the FIR on merit i.e. on the ground that no offence is disclosed against it even prima facie from the allegations made in the same. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition may be stated as below :- 1. A piece and parcel of land measuring 19200 Sq.Ft. is situated at Mirza Ismail Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) and a three storied building commonly known as "Dugar Building" is situated upon this land and the respondent is owner of half portion of the plot and the building situated upon it. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act having its registered office at 10, Sukhlal Johri Lane, Kolkata and Corporate Office at 88, Chandani Chowk Street, Police Station Bow Bazar, Kolkata. 3. As per contention of the petitioner, respondent agreed to sell his portion of the aforesaid property to the petitioner in lieu of sale consideration of Rs.1,11,00,000/- and after receiving an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- as part payment of sale consideration, he executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner on 28.11.2009 incorporating therein the terms and conditions of the sale and one of the conditions is that if any dispute arises between the parties regarding said sale, the same shall be referred to a sole arbitrator named in it. It is to be noted that respondent in disputing transaction of such sale and the execution of the aforesaid agreement claiming it to be a forged and fabricated document. 4. The petitioner company filed arbitration proceedings on or before 5.10.2010 under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent before the Calcutta High Court as Arbitration Case No. 646/2010 in which it was specifically alleged that the aforesaid agreement to sell was executed between the parties at the registered office of the petitioner. 5. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court vide order dated 5.10.2010 and 25.1.2011 passed in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings appointed one Shri Nilender Bhattacharyajee as receiver directing him to prepare an inventory report about the property in dispute and in compliance of the said orders, receiver came to Jaipur on 7.2.2011 but he could not prepare inventory due to strong objection on the part of the respondent. The respondent contended before the receiver that no such agreement was ever executed by him in favour of the petitioner and it is a forged and fabricated document. In this regard, a letter dated 7.2.2011 was also given by the respondent to the receiver. The respondent claims that a copy of the agreement was provided to him by the receiver and upon this fact of existence of agreement to sell dated 28.11.2009 came into his knowledge for the first time. 6. A written complaint was filed by the respondent on 12.2.2011 before Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North) which was sent to SHO, Police Station, Jalupura Jaipur for necessary action. Although formal FIR was not registered upon this complaint but preliminary enquiry was undertaken and it was found that no offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, Jalupura and in this regard a report dated 9.3.2011 was prepared. A letter dated 17.3.2011 along with relevant papers was sent by DCP (N), Jaipur to Commissioner of Police, Kolkata with a request to register FIR and undertake necessary investigation. A Letter dated 23.11.2012 was written by the respondent to DCP (N), Jaipur with a request to provide him details of the aforesaid communication to Commissioner of Police, Kolkata so that he can pursue the matter at Kolkata police and the accused persons may be prosecuted and punished. DCP (N), Jaipur again sent a letter dated 10.12.2012 to Commissioner of Police, Kolkata with reference to his previous letter dated 17.3.2011 with request to take necessary action and copy of this letter was also sent to respondent. It is the claim of the respondent that the aforesaid letters and papers have not reached at Kolkata and neither FIR has been registered at Kolkata nor investigation has been undertaken by it. 7. The respondent filed Civil Suit No.40/2011 before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court on 24.2.2011 against the petitioner and some other persons with a prayer to declare the aforesaid agreement to sell null & void and in para No.16 and 30 of the plaint, it was specifically averred that the aforesaid agreement has been executed at the registered and corporate office of the petitioner situated at Kolkata, although it was also alleged that the agreement is a forged and fabricated document. It was also averred in the plaint that the petitioner and other persons named in the plaint entered into criminal conspiracy at Kolkata and as a result thereof, the aforesaid agreement was executed. It is to be noted that in the plaint no where it was averred that the agreement was executed at Jaipur. 8. In the aforesaid suit vide order dated 25.2.2011, the petitioner company was directed by the Hon'ble Court to produce the original agreement before it on or before 28.2.2011. 9. FIR No.67/2011 came to be registered on 26.2.2011 at Police Station Vidhyakpuri, Jaipur at the instance of one Sushil Soni for offence u/s 379 IPC with the allegation that the original agreement along with some other luggage was stolen by an auto-riksha driver. After investigation, final report was filed by the police in the court concerned but it is said that protest petition against the same is still pending. 10. Inventory dated 12.3.2011 was prepared by the aforesaid receiver as appointed by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in compliance of the orders subsequently passed by it in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings. 11. As the petitioner failed to produce original agreement before Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid civil suit, order dated 14.6.2011 came to be passed restraining the petitioner to place further reliance on the agreement. 12. The aforesaid arbitration case was dismissed in default by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 24.11.2011. 13. Another FIR No.180/2011 was registered at Police Station Vidhyakpuri, Jaipur on 2.6.2011 at the instance of Shri Sushil Soni in which initially negative final report was proposed with the finding that although luggage of the informer was found to be stolen but the accused could not be traced. It is said that the FR so proposed was not approved by the higher police officer and investigation is still pending. 14. The respondent complainant filed complaint No.361/2013 before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 11.11.2013 against petitioner and other accused for offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with section 120-B IPC with the allegation that in pursuance of their criminal conspiracy the aforesaid agreement to sell was forged and fabricated at Jaipur. The complaint was sent for investigation under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Jalupura, Jaipur and FIR No.267/2013 was registered on 7.12.2013 for the aforesaid offences and investigation commenced. After initial investigation, investigating Officer found that Police Station Jalupura does not have jurisdiction to investigate the case as the offences for which the FIR has been registered were not committed within the local limits of the police station and with this finding negative final report No.2/2014 was prepared on 21.1.2014 but the aforesaid finding of the Investigating Officer was not approved by the Higher Police Officers and the final report was re-opened and further investigation in the case was undertaken and subsequently investigation was handed over to CID (CB). Presently, the investigation is in the hands of CID (CB). It is to be noted that in the present complaint facts about complaint dated 12.2.2011, findings about lack of jurisdiction and communication between DCP (N), Jaipur and Commissioner of Police, Kolkata and between complaint and DCP were not mentioned. 15. Representation was submitted by the petitioner on 10.3.2014 before the investigating agency with the averment that the present police station has no jurisdiction to investigate the matter. 16. Notice dated 21.5.2014 was issued by the CID (CB) to petitioner calling him to appear before it so that he may be interrogated. 17. During the course of investigation, it has been found that the stamp paper used for preparation of the agreement to sell was issued by the treasury concerned to a stamp vendor on 30.3.2010. It is pertinent to note that the date of agreement is 28.11.2009. 18. Representation dated 22.1.2014 to Commissioner of Police, Jaipur and further representation dated 9.2.2014 to ADGP (Crime) Rajasthan, Jaipur was made by the respondent for a fair, impartial and efficient investigation in the case. 19. In compliance of the order dated 29.5.2014 passed by this court, I.O. of the case has filed her affidavit dated 9.7.2014 regarding jurisdiction of the present police station to investigate the case.
(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that every offence is local in the sense that it should be investigated by that police station only within whose local limits it was committed and similarly it can be inquired into and tried by the court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. It was further submitted that as per sub-section (1) of Section 156 of Cr.P.C., an officer-in-charge of a police station may investigate a cognizable offence which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code. According to the learned counsel, the local limits of a police station to investigate an offence is directly interlinked with the local limits of the court within whose jurisdiction the offence has been committed i.e. if an offence has been committed within the local limits of a particular court, a police station falling within that limit only has jurisdiction to investigate that offence and to file report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. in that court. It was also submitted that according to section 177 of the Code, an offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose jurisdiction it was committed. In the present case it is an admitted fact even by the respondent that the agreement to sell in dispute was executed at the registered office of the petitioner company situated at Kolkata and thereof each and every offence for which the aforesaid FIR has been registered being committed at Kolkata, court at Kolkata within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the office is situated has jurisdiction to inquire into and try the offences so committed and similarly only that police station has jurisdiction to investigate the case within whose jurisdiction the office is situated i.e. the offences have been committed. It was pointed out that all the offences for which the FIR has been registered completed as soon as in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy agreement in dispute was executed and the arbitration proceedings on that basis were initiated in the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court. It was contended that none of the offences can be said to be covered u/s 178 of the Code, nor it can be said that the offences for which the FIR has been registered are such offences which completed only by reason of anything which has been done and by some consequence which was ensued as provided u/s 179 of the Code. It was submitted that merely because FIRs No. 67/2011 and 180/2011 were registered at Police Station Vidhyakpuri Jaipur, it cannot be said that the police station at Jaipur has jurisdiction to investigate the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner theft of the original agreement is an entirely separate and independent incident unconnected with the preparation of the forged and fabricated document. In the facts and circumstances of the case,it cannot be said that the offences for which the present FIR has been registered completed only when the original agreement was stolen or theft of the same was in continuation of its preparation and fabrication. It was also submitted that similarly allegation of attempt on the part of one of the accused to take forceful possession of some part of the property in dispute also at the most is a separate and independent incident for which separate FIR can be lodged but merely by that reason it cannot be said that the offence of criminal conspiracy, cheating and forgery can be investigated by the police station within whose local jurisdiction the building in question is situated. It was emphasized that as per Clause (l) of Section 461 of the Code, if any Magistrate not being empowered by law, tries an offender, his proceedings shall be void. According to the learned counsel as the investigation of an offence is interlinked with its trial, investigation without jurisdiction is bad in law. It was contended that although section 462 of the Code cures defect in a finding, sentence or order caused only due to lack of local jurisdiction of the court but it is a post trial cure and it does not mean that the objection on the ground of local jurisdiction cannot be raised at the initial stage. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if an objection on the ground of lack of local jurisdiction is raised at the initial stage of the inquiry, trial or other proceedings, the same cannot be over-ruled by saying that it is curable as provided u/s 462 of the Code. It was also contended that although sub-section (2) of Section 156 of the Code provides that no proceedings of a police officer shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to investigate but if the objection about the lack of power to investigate the case on the part of the police officer is raised at the initial stage of the investigation, the same cannot be discarded taking shelter under this provision. It was further pointed out that the present police station cannot have jurisdiction merely by the reason that the property in question is situated within its local jurisdiction or there is possibility that as a consequence of the agreement to sell the respondent may be divested from its title. It was contended that although it is well settled legal position that to determine the place of offence allegation made in the complaint / FIR are to be looked into taking them to be true and correct but at the same time it is also well settled legal position that admitted documents of the complainant are also relevant to ascertain the place of offence and in the present case admissions made by the respondent in the plaint filed by him before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, it is clear that all the offences for which the FIR has been registered were committed at Kolkata and they completed as soon as the agreement was executed or at the most when arbitration proceedings were initiated on this behalf. It was further submitted that initially a written complaint was filed by the respondent on 12.2.2011 on which preliminary inquiry was conducted by the present police station although without registration of formal FIR and report dated 9.3.2011 was prepared to the effect that no offence has been committed within its local jurisdiction and on the basis of this report, a letter came to be sent by DCP, Jaipur (North) to Police Commissioner, Kolkata with a request to register FIR and undertake investigation in the case and respondent himself sought details of the letter so that he can pursue the matter at Kolkata. In the present FIR also after initial Investigation final report was proposed to be filed in the court concerned on the ground that offences have not been committed within its local limits but later on under pressure and influence of the respondent, the investigating agency changed its stand and investigation was handed over to CID (CB) and now its stand is that local police has jurisdiction to investigate the case for the reasons recorded in the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer in compliance of the order passed by this court. It was emphasized that in the present case petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the jurisdiction of the police station at the very initial stage of the investigation, the entire exercise of investigation will stand futile if the court in which the report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. is filed finds that it has no jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offences.
(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Lilade Sitade Pavaiya & Ors. v/s State of Gujarat & Ors., 1983 CrLJ 934, T.P. Nandakumar v/s State of Kerala, 2008 CrLJ 298 and Ganga Prasad Jaiswal v/s Chotelal Jain, 1963 AIR(MP) 128.;