SATVINDER KAUR versus STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 348 · Decided: 05-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SATVINDER KAUR 
v. 
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 5, 1999 
B 
(K.T. THOMAS AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : 
Sections 156, 170, 177, 178 and 482-Quashing of FIR on the ground 
C of lack of tenitorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence-Allegation of 
torture and dowry demand against husband and in laws at Patiala--FIR 
lodged at Delhi-FIR quashed by High Court at the stage of investigation on 
the ground of tenitorial jurisdiction-Validity of-Held, High Court not jus-
tified in quashing the FIR-S.H.O. has statutory authority to investigate any 
D cognizable offence for which FIR was lodgetf-After investigation, if he comes 
to the conclusion that the offence was not committed within his tenitorial 
jurisdiction, he can forward the case to the Magistrate-Indian Penal Code, 
1860-Sections 406 and 498-A. 
Sec. 482-Investigation into cognizable offence-Interference with on 
E the ground of lack of tenitorial jurisdiction-Scope and extent of 
Appellant and respondent no.2 married at Delhi and a daughter 
was born to them. Appellant-wife alleged that she was thrown out of her 
matrimonial home in Patiala weeks after the birth of the baby. She lodged 
F a complaint against her husband and in-laws at Police Station, Kotwali 
in Patiala. Thereafter, she came to Delhi to stay with her parents. Since 
respondent no. 2-husband continued to threaten her, she lodged a com" 
plaint in the Women's cell at Delhi. Subsequently, an FIR was also lodged 
· under Ss.406 and 498A, IPC for occurrences at Patiala, at a Police Station 
G in Delhi. Respondent no. 2-husband was arrested at Patiala. He filed a 
petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the FIR on the ground that 
the Investigating Officer had no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the 
offence. High Court upholding the said plea quashed the FIR. Hence the 
present appeal. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
348 
SATVINDER KAUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) 
349 
HELD : 1.1. The S.H.O. has statutory authority under Sec. 156 of A 
the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate any cognizable case for which 
an FIR is lodged. Thus, High Court committed grave error in quashing 
the FIR on the ground that Investigating Officer has no territorial juris-
diction to investigate the offence. [353-C; 357-C] 
1.2. Section 156 of the Code empowers the Police Officer to inves-
tigate any cognizable offence. After investigation, if the Investigating Of-
ficer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR 
has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to 
_ submit a report accordingly under Sec. 170 of the Code and forward the 
B 
· case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. But C 
this would not mean that in a case which requires investigation, the police 
officer can refuse to record the FIR and/or investigate it. That apart, Sec. 
156(2) contains an embargo that no proceeding of a police officer shall 
be challenged on the ground that he has no territorial power to inves-
tigate. ~e High Court has completely overlooked the said embargo when D 
it entertained the petition of respondent no. 2 on the ground of want of 
territorial jurisdiction. [353-E; 357-E-F; 354-E] 
State of West Bengal v. S.N. Basak, [1963] 2 SCR 52, relied on. 
1.3. Under Chapter XIII of the Code, there is no absolute prohibi-
tion on courts that the offence committed beyond the local territorial 
jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. Section 178 inter 
alia provides for place of inquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of 
several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence was 
committed partly in one local area and partly in other and where it 
consisted of se.veral acts done in different local areas; it could be inquired 
into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. 
Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that S.H.O. does 
not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. [354-F; 355-DJ 
2. There should be no interference under Sec. 482 of the Code at 
the stage of investigation, on the ground that there Investigating Officer 
has no territorial jurisdiction. Further, the legal position is well settled 
that if an offence is disclosed the Court will not normally interfere with 
an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence_ 
alleged to be completed. If the F.I.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.