Jajati Kesari Biswal vs State of Orissa

Indrajit Mahanty, J.—The question that arises for consideration in the present revision is as to whether the petitioner who has already been charge-sheeted by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar can be made to face trial for the selfsame offence before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir and further, as to whether learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir has necessary jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence which did not take place within his territorial jurisdiction.

Mr. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no part of the alleged offence occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir and in the absence of such fact, the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir has no jurisdiction to pass any order of cognizance in the matter. In support of his contention, Mr. Panda placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Premkumar and Ors. v. State of Kerala (2009) 42 OCR 550 (SC) as well as in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, and on various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The present case arises in a peculiar circumstance under which, one Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra is alleged to have been kidnapped from Bhubaneswar and allegedly thereafter murdered. An F.I.R. alleging kidnap of said Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra was filed on 27.5.2008 before the Sahidnagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar. From the records, it appears that one of the accused Jilu Sahu on his arrest is stated to have implicated one Sk. Hyder who has been involved in the crime. The wife of the kidnapped victim (informant), namely, Smt. Satyabhama Mohapatra, thereafter states to have met the said Sk. Hyder at Bolangir jail where Sk. Hyder made a demand of Rs. 1 crore to release Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra from custody. Thereafter, said Satyabhama Mohapatra lodged an F.I.R. on 15.1.2008 before Bolangir Town Police Station which was registered as P.S. Case No. 10 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 33 of 2008. In the said F.I.R., she alleged that she had learned from the statement of one co-accused (Jilu Sahu) that said Sk. Hyder is involved in this case for which reason she along with some of her relatives met Sk. Hyder at Bolangir oh 29.11.2007, where Sk. Hyder is stated to have admitted that Rashmiranjan Mohapatra was in his custody and demanded Rs. 1 crore to release him. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that Sk. Hyder collected Rs. 1 crore from her through one Sk. Aulad, Advocate. In the said F.I.R. she has further alleged that apart from said Sk. Aulad, the following persons, namely, Jajati-Keshari Biswal (who is stated to be the son-in-law of Sk. Hyder) and his wife, namely, Gayatri Biswal were alleged to have been involved in collection of money from the informant and her relatives.

Based on such F.I.R., the petitioner and his wife were apprehended by the police and produced before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir who passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2008 to the following effect:

U.T.P. Sk. Hyder and Sk. Chunai '' Nabin produced in custody and remanded to J/C till 8.12.2005.

Sd/- S.D.J.M.

Later:

Record is put up to-day. On perusal the case record, it is found that Preliminary C.S. vide No. 63 dt. 25.3.08. was received by the P.O. since 27.5.08., but no Cog. Has been taken since long. Perused the case record. I.O. has submitted C.S. u/s 506/386/120-B I.P.C. against accused persons namely, xxx

xxx (3) Jagati Keshari Biswal (35 years) S/o. Golak Bihari Biswal of Vill.-Koro, P.S./Dist. Kendrapada, xxx xxx (5) Gayatri Biswal(32 years) W/o. Jagati Biswal, VIII.-Koro, P.S./Dist.- Kendrapada, xxx xxx Perused the preliminary C.S., and other connected papers. I am satisfied that a prima facie case u/s 506/386/120-B I.P.C. is wellmade out against the above named accd. persons. Hence, Cog. of the offence u/s 506, 386, 120-B. I.P.C. against the above named accd. persons is taken.

Accd. Sikandar '' Mirza Aquib Ali, Prasanta Sahu, and Gaytri Biswal are on Court bail and accd. Jagati Kishore Biswal, Sk. Nasir, Akthar Ali, Ganapati Prasad Ray and Sarabuddin Khan(r) Babuli are in J/C. Put up on 8.12.08 awaiting Final chargesheet.

Sd/- S.D.J.M., BLG.

Mr. Panda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner would be clear from the informant''s statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Bolangir Police. She has stated that the petitioner and his wife were contacted by the informant and his family members at their village Kero in the district of Kendrapada. It is alleged that the petitioner and his wife demanded a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs from the informant''s brother Dillip Behera and although the said amount was paid, the informant''s brother was not provided with necessary information. Therefore, since the informant''s husband was not released, they met said Sk. Hyder at Bolangir jail for release of her husband and such demand was met by the informant by handing over money to one Sk. Aulad, Advocate.

Learned State counsel, in course of hearing of the present revision, was called upon to satisfy the Court as to which part of the alleged offence against the petitioner occurred within the jurisdiction of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. Learned State counsel sought for instruction from the I.I.C. Bolangir Police Station and pursuant to that request the I.I.C, Bolangir Police Station appeared before this Court in person along with necessary records. The Inspector-in-charge produced before this Court the original records containing the F.I.R. lodged by the informant Satyabhama Mohapatra as well as the statement of the informant recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. There was nothing on record to connect the petitioner or his wife with any involvement in any crime stated to have taken place within the jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. The learned State counsel fairly conceded that the allegation against the present petitioner and his wife pertains to the alleged demand of money made by the petitioner and his wife at their village Kero in the district of Kendrapada, when the informant who had sought for information from the petitioner and his wife regarding the whereabouts of Rashmi Ranjan Mohapatra.

Learned State counsel also agrees with the petitioner''s submission that for the selfsame occurrence i.e., alleged demand of money for providing information, the petitioner and his wife have been charge-sheeted under Sections 506, 386, 120-B I.P.C. under supplementary charge-sheet No. 143 by the S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar and the petitioner and his wife have also been committed for trial before the Bhubaneswar Court.

At this point, it is important to take note of the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Premkumar and Ors. (supra) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of jurisdiction held as follows:

So far as the jurisdiction of Kadakkavoor Police Station vis-a-vis the provisions of Section 177, Cr.P.C. is concerned, we may notice that in the case of Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, this Court in a case arising under Sections 498A and 406 as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 held as under:

"All Crime is local, the jurisdiction over the crime belongs to the country where the crime is committed", as observed by Blackstone. A significant word used in Section 177 of the Code is "ordinarily". Use of the word indicates that the provisions is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the code. As observed by the Court in Purushottamdas Dalmia Vs. The State of West Bengal, , L.N. Mukherjee Vs. The State of Madras, , Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, and Mohan Baitha and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, exception implied by the word "ordinarily" need not be provided by law on consideration or may be implied from the provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same Court. No such exception is applicable to the case at hand.

The question, therefore, which is required to be posed was as to whether any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.

This Court applied the meaning of the expression ''cause of action'' to hold:

The expression "cause of action" is generally understood to mean a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a tribunal; a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for sitting; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person. In Black''s Law Dictionary a "cause of action" is stated to be the entire set of facts that gives rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact, which, if traversed, the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In Words and Phrases (4th Edn.), the meaning attributed to the phrase "cause of action" in common legal parlance is existence of those facts, which give a party a right to judicial interference on his behalf.

An identical question recently came up for consideration in the case of Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha and Others, wherein this Court in the peculiar facts obtaining therein although opined that a part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata as a larger part arose in U.P. directed as under:

We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if this appeal is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) Further investigation shall be carried out by C.B.C.I.D. of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

(ii) Accused/respondents shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad and their applications for grant of bail, if any, may be considered by the said Court on its own merits.

(iii) The accused/respondent shall render all cooperation with the Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed, if released on bail.

(iv) Investigation shall be carried out inter alia on the premise ''that the jurisdiction to make investigation shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as if investigation are being carried out by the C.B.C.I.D. of the State of Uttar Pradesh in continuation of the investigation made by the Officer-in-charge of the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Allahabad shall be entitled to pass appropriate orders from time to time in this behalf.

(v) The Report on completion of the investigation shall be forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta who shall determine the question of his own jurisdiction at an appropriate stage.

(vi) This order, it is made clear, is being passed in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. All concerned authorities are directed to carry out these directions.

Yet recently in the case of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, this Court directed as under:

Mr. Sorabjee, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Huzffa Ahmadi, appearing for Respondent 2 in each of the appeals, however, brought to our notice that charge-sheet has already been submitted. It was contended that proper investigation has been carried out in the matter and even the respondent accused had been taken into custody and, thus, this Court, in a situation of this nature, should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Investigation has been carried out by the officer in charge of Police Station Waghodia only pursuant to the order of the High Court. If the order of the High Court is to be set aside, the investigation must be held to have been carried out without any jurisdiction. We are not herein concerned with the quality of the investigation but the effect of the order passed by the High Court. We do not know as to whether (sic the issue of) proper Investigation as contended, has in fact been considered by the Court or not.

The first information report was lodged on 23.12.2006. The High Court appears to have been approached within a few days, namely, 26.12.2006. The impugned order has been passed on 28.12.2006. The first information report prime facie shows that a part of cause of jurisdiction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Police station. We fail to understand as. to how at such an early stage, the investigation should have been directed to be transferred, having regard to the fact that Waghodia Police Station here the "Institution" in question is situated is within the jurisdiction of Vadodara (District) and is, therefore, not a case where the accused would have been even otherwise gravely prejudiced in joining investigation.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where we should refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the charge-sheet filed by Waghodia Police Station stand set aside. The police officer concerned of Vadodara Police Station would initiate appropriate investigation in the matter in accordance with law. Any document collected as also the statements of any witnesses recorded by the officer in charge of Waghodia Police Station, however, may be sent to the in charge of Vadodara Police Station.

In view of the Judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court as noted hereinabove, and in the facts of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that since no part of any offence alleged against he petitioner occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir, I am of the view that the learned State Counsel failed to establish as to which part of the offence occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. Consequently, the order of cognizance dated 25.11.2008 passed in G.R. Case No. 33 of 2008 against the petitioner is quashed.

In so far as investigation into the case by the Sahidnagar Police Station is concerned, keeping in view filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and commitment of the petitioner to Court of Sessions for trial, no parallel proceeding for the selfsame occurrence can be permitted to continue before the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir. In the circumstance of the present case, it is directed that since the Sahidnagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar has necessary jurisdiction to investigate into the matter against the present petitioner alongwith the other accused persons, therefore while quashing the order of cognizance passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bolangir, in the interest of justice, further investigation into the case may be carried out by Sahidnagar Police Station and for such purpose, the I.I.C. Bolangir Town Police Station is directed to send all materials collected during the course of investigation to the I.I.C. Sahidnagar Police Station who shall ensure that all such information transmitted to him are suitably utilized for the purpose of prosecution and for use in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision is allowed in terms of the directions noted hereinabove.