2007 (9) TMI 721 - HC - Indian Laws

Order Overturned: Jurisdiction Lapse Leads to Discharge in Blackmail Case Involving Chengannur MLA.

The HC set aside the order rejecting the discharge application under Section 239, Cr. P.C., filed by the revision petitioner, due to the Museum Police's ... Territorial jurisdiction of a police station for investigation of cognizable offences - police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases under Section 156, Cr.P.C. - territorial nexus between place of offence and competent court under Section 177, Cr.P.C. - duty to record information and forward to competent police station where territorial jurisdiction lacking - illegality of investigation commenced without territorial jurisdiction - inadmissibility of after thought statements recorded to clothe a police station with jurisdiction - discharge of accused where investigation is void for lack of jurisdictionTerritorial jurisdiction of a police station for investigation of cognizable offences - police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases under Section 156, Cr.P.C. - territorial nexus between place of offence and competent court under Section 177, Cr.P.C. - Whether the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram had territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the complaint against the revision petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The court examined the averments in the original complaint which showed that the threatening telephone calls were received by the complainant at her residence in Chengannur and that the accused and publication were based at Kozhikode. Territorial jurisdiction for investigation is co extensive with the jurisdiction of the court competent to try the offence; ordinarily an offence must be inquired into and tried within the local limits where it was committed. The power under Section 156 Cr.P.C. permits an officer in charge to investigate only where the police station has territorial competence. Merely forwarding a complaint by higher authorities to a police station does not confer territorial jurisdiction on that station. Where a station lacks jurisdiction its proper duty is to record the information and forward it to the police station having jurisdiction. [Paras 5, 6]Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram did not have territorial jurisdiction to register or investigate the complaint; Chengannur Police alone had jurisdiction.Duty to record information and forward to competent police station where territorial jurisdiction lacking - inadmissibility of after thought statements recorded to clothe a police station with jurisdiction - illegality of investigation commenced without territorial jurisdiction - discharge of accused where investigation is void for lack of jurisdiction - Whether the additional statement recorded by the Museum Police could validate their earlier exercise of investigatory powers and whether the accused ought to be discharged. - HELD THAT: - The court found that instead of recording the information and forwarding it to Chengannur Police, the Museum Police commenced investigation and thereafter obtained an additional statement from the complainant alleging threats at the M.L.A. Quarters. This step was viewed as a deliberate manoeuvre to manufacture territorial nexus and justify an otherwise impermissible investigation. Such after thoughts cannot cure a jurisdictional defect; commencing an investigation without jurisdiction is an act of total lack of jurisdiction and not a mere irregularity. Given that want of jurisdiction was raised at the earliest opportunity and the Director General of Prosecution conceded lack of authority, continuation of proceedings on that basis was impermissible. [Paras 6]The impugned order refusing discharge was set aside and the revision petitioner was discharged on account of the Museum Police's lack of jurisdiction; the Police may transfer the complaint to the proper station for action according to law.Final Conclusion: Revision allowed. The Magistrate's order refusing discharge is set aside; the first accused is discharged for want of territorial jurisdiction on the part of the Museum Police, subject to the Museum Police transferring the complaint to the police station having jurisdiction to be dealt with in accordance with law. Issues involved: Jurisdiction of police station for investigation, legality of investigation by Museum Police, application of mind by authorities in handling complaint.Summary:1. The revision petitioner challenged the order rejecting his application for discharge under Section 239, Cr. P.C. related to a complaint by an opposition M.L.A. regarding blackmailing calls from the Chief Editor of a bi-weekly publication. 2. The complaint alleged blackmailing calls made to the M.L.A.'s residence, leading to the registration of a case by Museum Police. The revision petitioner sought discharge citing lack of territorial jurisdiction of Museum Police.3. The High Court found that Museum Police lacked jurisdiction to investigate the case as the calls were received at the M.L.A.'s residence in Chengannur, falling under Chengannur police jurisdiction. The actions of Museum Police were deemed illegal.4. The Court emphasized that the Museum Police, by taking a further statement to justify their investigation, acted beyond their authority. The lack of jurisdiction was a serious issue, not a mere irregularity, warranting the discharge of the revision petitioner.5. The Court set aside the order rejecting the discharge application, highlighting the administrative deficiencies in handling the complaint and stressing the importance of proper application of mind by authorities in such cases.6. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for adherence to legal procedures and the significance of jurisdictional boundaries in criminal investigations, ensuring fair and lawful proceedings.