Kerala High Court Lays Down Guidelines For Investigation By Police Officers In Cognizable Offences Committed Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Of Police Station

In the facts of the case, the accused alleged that the investigation was conducted by the police station lacking jurisdiction since the alleged offence took place beyond its territorial jurisdiction.

Justice Sophy Thomas laid down the following directions regarding the investigation and registration of FIRs by police officers regarding the commission of a cognizable offence beyond their territorial limits.

1. An officer in charge of a police station, irrespective of his jurisdiction is competent to record every information in writing about the commission of a cognizable offence.
2. Power of a police in charge of a police station is extensive with that of the Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such Station, having power to enquire into or try that offence.
3. A criminal court has jurisdiction to enquire or try  an offence only when it was committed within its jurisdiction.
4. If a police officer can recorded the commission of a cognizable offence that took place outside its jurisdiction, he has to forward the recorded/registered FIR to the police station that has the jurisdiction.
5. No absolute prohibition that offence committed beyond the local territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated or enquired into by an Officer in charge of a Police Station, who recorded the information and registered the FIR
6. Power of Court limited. Once an investigation is started. It cannot be challenged in a court for the ground that police officer investigating it lacks jurisdiction.
7. If a police officer conducts investigation that was committed beyond its jurisdiction or as per orders of Court, the result of such investigation is to be submitted as provided under Sections 168, 169 and 170 of CrPC.
8. If the police officer has investigated a case beyond its territorial jurisdiction, after completion of investigation, it shall forward the accused, or if the offence is bailable, after taking security for his appearance, to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence/commit/try etc. under Section 170 of CrPC.
9. Court can verify and decide jurisdiction, on receiving a compliant regarding commission of a cognizable offence to forward the case to a police station for registration of FIR and investigation. And, once such complaint is received as per orders of the Court, the Officer in charge of that Police Station, has no other go, but to register a crime and to investigate the same, even if the offence alleged was committed beyond its territorial limits.

Background Facts

The accused in an offence under Section 376 (punishment for rape) read with Section 34 (common intention) of IPC, approached the High Court for quashing the final report pending against him alleging lack of jurisdiction of the police for conducting an investigation that took place outside its territorial jurisdiction.

It was submitted that the victim girl was sexually assaulted and raped at various places in Ernakulam district and she was abandoned thereafter at Ernakulam. Her father lodged a missing person complaint at Vizhinjam Police Station in Thiruvananthapuram district.

On getting information about the victim girl from the Ernakulam police station, it was argued that she was brought to the Vizhinjam Police station in Thiruvananthapuram district and information was recorded. An FIR was registered and the investigation was conducted.

The case was brought for trial in Special Court, Thiruvananthapuram. It is alleged that at the request of the accused, the case was transferred and is pending before the District Court, Ernakulam. The accused alleged that the final report has to be quashed since the Vizhinjam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram had no jurisdiction to investigate a crime committed in Ernakulam district.

Court Findings

The Counsel for the petitioner argued that police conducted an investigation which took place beyond its territorial limits. He alleged that the final report filed by the Vizhinjam Police Station could not have been accepted and had to be quashed.

The Public Prosecutor, opposing the arguments stated that a police officer has the power to record information regarding the commission of a cognizable case as per Section 156 CrPC even if the alleged offence took place beyond its jurisdiction.

The Bench relied on the Apex Court judgment in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and others (2010), to state there was no restriction on the police officer to investigate a complaint that took place outside its territorial jurisdiction. It further added that when a complaint is forwarded by the Court to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) CrPC, then it becomes imperative for the police to conduct the investigation and they cannot refuse such investigation stating lack of jurisdiction.

It further stated that the investigation would not be vitiated even if it was conducted by a Police Officer having no jurisdiction where the crime was registered. It added that the trial has to be conducted by the court having jurisdiction over the area where the offence was committed.

It relied upon Satvinder Kaur v. State (2020) to observe that a police officer has a statutory duty to investigate a cognizable offence after registration of an FIR.

The Court further stated that a victim cannot be penalised for the procedural irregularities or technical defects if any committed by the investigating officer.

In the facts of the case, the Court stated that the investigation conducted by Vizhinjam Police was not vitiated. It found that the accused has no case that any prejudice was caused to him by the investigation. It thus stated that Additional District Court, Ernakulam where the matter is now pending has the jurisdiction to try the case since the alleged offence was committed in its local jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Sebastian Joseph

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor Vipin Narayan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

Case title: Noel Joseph v State of Kerala

Case number: CRL.MC NO. 8376 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment