RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 06-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ' 
[2009) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 722 
I .._ 
A 
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR 
v. 
... 
.\. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. 
(CrimiRal Appeal No. 2041 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 06, 2009 
., 
B 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
~ 
Code of c;riminal Procedure, 1973: s. 156(3). -
Investigating agency cannot decide not to investigate a 
-~ 
complaint forwarded to it under s.156(3) on the ground that 
c offence complained of was allegedly committed outside its 
territorial jurisdiction. 
The question which arose for consideration in the 
present appeal was whether in regard to the order passed 
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the police authorities 
., 
D empowered under Sub-Section (1) of Section 156 can 
~ 
unilaterally decide not to conduct an investigation on the 
ground that they had no territorial jurisdiction to do so. 
" 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
_.! 
HELD: 1.1. A 'police officer in charge of a police station 
E can, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any 
cognizable offence which a Court having jurisdiction over 
such police station can inquire into or try under Chapter 
Ill of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-section (2) of 
Sect.ion 156 ensures that once an investigation is 
F commenced under Sub-section (1 ), the same is not 
interrupted on the ground that the police officer was not 
empowered under the Section to investigate. It is in the 
nature ofa ''savings clause" in respect of investigations 
i 
undertaken in respect of cognizable offences. In addition 
I 
to the powers vested· in a Magistrate empowered under 
....
G Section 190 Cr.P.C. to order an investigation under Sub-
section (1) of section 202 Cr.P.C., Sub-section (3) of 
Section 156 also empowers such Magistrate to order an 
')< 
investigation on a complaint filed before him. Sub-section 
(4) only indicates that an inquiry or trial of an offence of 
H 
722 
,.. 
RASIKLAL DALPATRAM THAKKAR v. STATE OF 
723 
GUJARAT AND ORS. 
criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust can 
A 
be conducted by a Court within whose jurisdiction the 
+ 
offence had been committed or any part of the property 
forming the subject matter of the offence is received or 
retained or was required to be returned or accounted for 
by the accused person. The said provisions do not 8 
account for a stage contemplated on account of an order 
made under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Paras 20 and 21] [732-
A-C-F-G] 
Agencia Commercial International Ltd. v. Custodian of the 
Branches of Banco National Ultramarino (1982) 2 SCC 482; c 
Satvinder Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728; 
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v. State of Gujarat (2008) 8 SCC 
300; Asif Bhattacharjee ¥· Hanuman Prasad Ojha (2007) 5 
sec 786, referred to. 
2. In the instant case, the stage contemplated under D 
Section 181 (4) Cr.P .C. has not yet been reached. Prior to 
taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the Bank, the 
Chief Judicial Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, had 
directed an inquiry under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. A final 
report was submitted by the Investigating Agency 
-f.' 
entrusted with the investigation stating that since the 
E 
alleged transactions had taken place within the territorial 
limits of the city of Mumbai, no cause of action had arisen 
in the State of .Gujarat and, therefore, the investigation 
should be transferred to the police agency in Mumbai. Both 
the t_rial Court as well as the Bombay High Court correctly 
F 
interpreted the provisions of Section 156 Cr.P .C. to hold 
---
that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Investigating 
Agency to refrain itself from holding a proper and 
complete investigation merely upon arriving at a 
~ 
conclusion that the offences had been committed beyond 
its territorial juris,diction. A glance at the material before the 
G 
Magistrate would indicate that the major part of the loan 
~i 
transaction, in fact, took place in the State of Gujarat and 
f' 
that having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (2) of 
Section 156 Cr.P.C., the proceedings of the investigation 
could not be questioned on the ground of jurisdiction of H 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20091 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A the officer to conduct such investigation. It was open to 
the learned Magistrate to direct an investigation under 
+ 
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without taking cognizance on the 
complaint and where an investigation is undertaken at the 
instance of the Magistrate a Police Officer empowered 
8 under Sub-section (1) of Section 156 is bound, exce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.