IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2011() 1. SARANYA, D/O.SASIDHARAN, ITTITTUVILA ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, ... Respondent 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :27/06/2011 O R D E R THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1933 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27th day of June, 2011 O R D E R
Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.M.P. No.5512 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur, in Kollam District. She alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 452, 376 and Section 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Paravur Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). That Police registered Crime No.781 of 2011. Later, on the impression that the place of occurrence is within the local limits of Kanjirappally Police Station, the FIR was transmitted to that Police and the said police registered Crime No.366 of 2011. That action of Paravur Police is called in question in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that the Paravur Police has jurisdiction to investigate the case CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011 -: 2 :- since allegations in the complaint disclose that part of the cause of action has arisen at the paternal house of petitioner at Paravur within the local limits of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur and at any rate since learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur has directed the Paravur Police to investigate into the matter under Sec.156 (3) of the Code, that police was bound to investigate and submit a final report. According to the learned counsel if at all Paravur police had no jurisdiction it was for the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in that regard after submission of the final report. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.
2. The Supreme Court in Sunitha Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another (2011 (4) JT
236) has held that so far as offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is concerned various factors determine the cause of action for the case. In that case due to the harassment and ill-treatment by the husband and in-laws at Ranchi, complainant was taken to her paternal home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011 -: 3 :- fulfilling demand for dowry. It was held that offences having been committed in more local areas, one of which being Gaya, learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Here, learned Magistrate, Paravur forwarded the complaint to the Paravur police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code. It is for the learned Magistrate to decide whether on the averments in the complaint or any part of the cause of action has taken place within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Learned counsel has pointed out that even while petitioner was at her paternal house at Paravur, she was criminally intimidated over telephone. I make it clear that these are matters which learned Judicial First Class Magistrate has to decide at the appropriate stage.
3. When there is an order for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code it is not within the power of the police to say that they have no jurisdiction in the matter. The Supreme Court in Rasiklal Dalpatram Takkur v. State of Gujrat (2010(1) SCC 1 - paragraph 33) considered the situations where police registers cases on the information CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011 -: 4 :- directly given to them and as per order of a Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Code. Regarding the latter it is held that when there is an order under Sec.156(3) of the Code, the police could not say that they have no jurisdiction in the matter to investigate. They have to investigate and submit report and then it is for the the court to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as and when the entire facts are placed before it. In the light of the above, action of Paravur police in transmitting the FIR and connected records to the Kanjirappally police cannot stand and is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The action taken by the Paravur police in transmitting the FIR and connected records in Crime No.781 of 2011 to the Kanjirappally Police and the latter registering Crime No.366 of 2011 are set aside. The Kanjirappally police shall retransmit the FIR and connected records to the Paravur Police who shall comply with the direction given to it under Sec.156(3) of the Code and submit final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur as provided under law. I make it clear that it is open to the CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011 -: 5 :- learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur to decide on the entire facts being placed before it whether he has jurisdiction to proceed with the case as provided under law.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.