2011 ALL MR (Cri) 2836
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(NAGPUR BENCH)
V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L. TAHALIYANI, JJ.
Rounaqusingh Gurudayalsingh Kandey & Ors.Vs.Nitin Anand Kshirsagar & Anr.
Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 of 2011
5th May, 2011
Petitioner Counsel: Shri A.R. SAMBRE, V.D. AWACHAT, M.A. BARABDE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. MIRZA
Criminal P.C. (1973) S.156(3) - Transfer of investigation - Only in the event an investigating officer arrives at a finding that the alleged crime had not been committed within his territorial jurisdiction - F.I.R. could be transferred to the Police having jurisdiction in the matter. AIR 2008 SC 2180 & (2007)5 SCC 786 : (2007)3 SCC (Cri) 31 - Rel .on. (Paras 8, 9, 10)
Cases Cited:
H.V. Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. Of Indian Ltd., (2000) 7 SCC 650 [Para 5]
Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 1 SCC 1 [Para 7]
Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2008 SC 2180 [Para 8]
Asit Bhattacharjee V. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, (2007) 5 SCC 786 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 31 [Para 9]
JUDGMENT
SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J. :- Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of learned counsel for all parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. The petitioners are seeking transfer of F.I.R. lodged by the respondent No.1 at Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai to Nagpur City Police.
4. The case pertains to purchase of shares. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the purchase of shares has been done at Nagpur by the petitioner No.1. The money for the shares is also received in his account in Nagpur. Thus, all the cause of action has arisen in Nagpur. Hence the complaint ought to have been filed at Nagpur and not at Marine Drive Police Station at Mumbai, therefore transfer of the case is sought from Mumbai to Nagpur.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in H.V. Jayaram Vs. Industrial Credit & Investment Corpn. Of Indian Ltd., (2000) 7 SCC 650. The said case related to offence punishable under section 113(2) of the Companies Act,1956. In the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of Sections 113 and Section 207 of the Companies Act held interalia that the cause of action for default of not sending the share certificates within the stipulated time would arise at the place where the registered office of the company is situated as from that place the share certificates can be posted and are usually posted. However, it is noticed that the point in issue in the present case that is registration of F.I.R. at a Police Station, and investigation by police in a case where they had no jurisdiction was not the point which arose for consideration in the said case, hence, this decision is not of any help to the petitioners.
6. The case of respondent No.1/original complainant as reflected in his F.I.R. is that petitioner No.1 came to his office at Marine Drive, Mumbai and induced him by giving false assurances to purchase shares. On perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that at least some part of the cause of action has arisen at Marine Drive in Mumbai.
7. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 1 which in fact pertains to investigation of offences in a case, the Supreme Court observed that in view of the provisions of Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. a police officer was competent to investigate any cognizable offence and was also competent to forward the same to the police station having territorial jurisdiction if he came to the conclusion that the crime had been committed beyond his territorial jurisdiction.
8. We may also quote with advantage the decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 2008 SC 2180 where the question involved was the High Court's jurisdiction to transfer investigation from one police station to another. The issue involved in the said case is the very issue involved in the present case. In the said case it was held that under Section 156 Cr.P.C. the police authorities exercise statutory powers to direct transfer of an investigation from one police station to another in the event it was found that they did not have jurisdiction in the matter and the Court should not interfere in the matter at an initial stage in regard thereto.
9. Similar observations were made by the Supreme Court in Asit Bhattacharjee V. Hanuman Prasad Ojha, (2007) 5 SCC 786 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri.) 31, though in a different context involving the transfer of an investigation ordered under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to another State where the major part of the offences had taken place. The Supreme Court reiterated that only in the event an investigating officer arrived at a finding that the alleged crime had not been committed within his territorial jurisdiction, could the F.I.R. be transferred to the police having jurisdiction in the matter.
10. Thus in view of the observations made in the recent decision of the Supreme Court and looking to the fact that prima facie we are of the opinion that at least some part of the cause of action has occurred within the jurisdiction of Marine Drive Police Station, Mumbai, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this stage.
11. If after investigation the investigating agency comes to the conclusion that the offence does not fall within their jurisdiction, it may take appropriate steps.