PREMKUMAR & ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1425 · Decided: 19-12-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 17 S.C.R. 1425 
PREMKUMAR & ORS. 
A 
v. 
-;.; 
STATE OF KERALA 
.. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2088 of 2008) 
DECEMBER 19, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Code of,Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 177 and 178 - Jurisdiction to conduct enquiry a(1d trial , 
-. 
- Determining factors - Discussed - Penal Code, 1860 - · c 
s.3048. 
ss.177 and 178 - Suicidal death in State of Tamil Nadu · 
- Father-in-law informed the Courtallam police station, Tamil· 
-Nadu - Case r'egistered under s.174 - Inspector submitted 
report stating that deceased committed suicide on account of , D 
her mental illness -
Investigation stopped - Father of , 
deceased lodged FIR in State of Kera/a - Application for 
.. 
quashing of FIR - Rejected - Held: In the interest of justice, 
-f 
investigation and consequent trial transferred to police officer · 
in-charge of Courta/lam Police Station, Tamil Nadu - All E 
materials collected by Kodakkavoor Police Station, Kera/a to 
be transferred to officer in-ch~rge of Courtallam Police 
Station. 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3048 - Essential ingredients -
Discussed. 
F 
.. 
Prosecution case was that on 14.2.2003, the 
-,: 
deceased, who was wife of appellant 1 and daughter-in-
law of appellant 2 committed suicide by hanging, in the 
State of Tamil Nadu. Appellant 2 informed the Courtallam 
police station about the unnatural death pursuant G 
.c 
whereto case uls. 174 Cr.P.C. was registered. The 
Inspector of Police, Courtallam submitted a report stating 
1 
that deceased committed suicide on account of her 
mental illness. The investigation pursuant to report u/s. 
1425 
H 
~ 
1426 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 
A 174 was stopped. 
The father of deceased lodged a complaint on 
4.3.2003 with Kadakkavoor Police in State of Kerala on 
"r-
the basis whereof an FIR was lodged for an offence u/s. 
3048 r/w. s.34 IPC. A charge sheet was filed by 
B Kadakkavoor Police. 
Appellants filed an application under s.482 Cr.P .C. 
before the High Court Kerala, Ernakulam, contending that 
the Kadakkavoor Police Station in the State of Kerala had 
no jurisdiction.to conduct an investigation in view of the 
c provision contained in s.177 Cr.P.C. and in any event one 
.. 
FIR having already been lodged by appellant no.2, the 
second FIR was not maintainable. The said application 
was- dismissed. Hence the instant appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD: 1.1. Jurisdiction to make an enquiry and trial ~ 
is laid down in Chapter XIII of Cr.P.C. s.177 thereof 
provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired 
into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction 
... 
"t 
it was committed. S.178, however, provides that when it 
E is uncertain in which of the local areas an offence was 
committed or where an offence is committed partly in one 
local area and partly in another or where an offence is 
continuing one, and continues to be committed in more 
local areas than one, it may be inquired into or tried by a 
F court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 
[Para 8] [1432-~-C] 
~ 
Vidhya Devi & Anr. v. State of Haryana, (2004) 9 SCC 
476, relied on. 
2. The word, 'ordinarily' occurring in s.177, Cr.P.C. 
G must be given its natural meaning. The provisions 
contained in s.178 and other provisions would be 
""*"
attracted when s.177 cannot be given effect to. These 
provisions in the Code governing the field emanate from 
\-
the doctrine that all crimes are local. Investigation into a 
H 
... 
. -j 
PREMKUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF KERALA 
1427 
crime, the witnesses who are required to be examined for A 
the purpose of proving the commission thereof and other 
relevant factors which are required to be taken .for . 
consideration thereof lead to the aforementioned 
inference. For the purpose of finding out in regard to the ' 
place, where the enquiry or trial should be conducted, , 8 
would be that the offence has taken place wholly or partly 
in the jurisdiction of one police station or wholly or partly 
in the jurisdiction of another police station and, thus, 
would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each 
case. [Para 9] [1432-C-F] 
c 
Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai 
& Anr.(2004) 8 SCC 100 and Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. 
State of Gujarat & Anr. (2008) 8 sec 300, relied on. 
Asif Bhattacharjee v. Mis. Hanuman Prasad Ojha & Ors. 
2007(7) SCALE 241, referred to. 
0 
2. The provisions of the Penal Code under which the 
accused is charged would als
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.