Police cannot challenge territorial jurisdiction after magistrate orders investigation under section 156(3) CrPC

Delhi HC held that police cannot challenge territorial jurisdiction after a magistrate orders investigation under section 156(3) CrPC. The complainant, a Delhi resident, carried cash and chequebook from Delhi to Greater Noida where they were forcibly taken. Since part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the MM had jurisdiction to direct investigation. The Additional Commissioner's transfer of investigation from Delhi to UP after the magistrate's order was tantamount to reviewing the MM's order, which only a superior court can do. The transfer order was set aside and petition allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking cancellation of the order transferring investigation to another jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order transferring the investigation from Delhi to Greater Noida, U.P., questioning the jurisdiction of the Addl. Commissioner of Police to make such a transfer.

2. The petitioner's complaint alleged abduction, extortion, and robbery in Noida, leading to the registration of an FIR at PS Model Town, Delhi, under the direction of the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).

3. The MM ordered fair and expeditious investigation, which was later transferred to Police Station Surajpur, Noida, U.P., by the Addl. Commissioner of Police, prompting the petitioner to file the present petition.

4. The petitioner argued that the transfer of investigation was contrary to law as the MM had jurisdiction over the case, and the Addl. Commissioner exceeded authority by transferring it to another state without proper grounds.

5. The respondent contended that since the incident did not occur in Delhi, the case was rightfully transferred to U.P. Police for investigation based on jurisdictional considerations.

6. The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), emphasizing the magistrate's power to order investigations and the limitations on police jurisdiction once an investigation is directed by the court.

7. Referring to precedents, the court highlighted that investigating agencies cannot refuse to investigate based on territorial jurisdiction and must follow court directives, especially when offenses span multiple jurisdictions.

8. Considering the principles of jurisdiction laid down by the Supreme Court, the court concluded that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, giving the MM jurisdiction over the case and rendering the transfer to U.P. improper.

9. The court, based on legal provisions and case law, held that the Addl. Commissioner's order transferring the investigation was unlawful and set it aside, allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner.

---