PUNEET CHAWLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner invokes inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code") for quashing of FIR No.518/2007 dated 28.11.2007, registered at Police Station (PS) Janakpuri and the report under Section 173 of the Code filed on the basis of the said FIR.

(2.) The short ground taken by the Petitioner is that the allegations made by the complainant in the charge sheet would show that the alleged acts of cruelty/misappropriation took place either at Faridabad or at Chandigarh. Relying on Sections 177 and 178 of the Code, the learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that since neither the offence nor any part thereof was committed within the jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Police was not entitled to carry out the investigation in respect of the offence alleged and the Court at Delhi was not competent to take cognizance of the charge sheet. Relying on Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., 2004 8 AD(SC) 288, the learned counsel for the Petitioner prays for quashing of the FIR.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for the State drawing my attention to Section 156 of the Code and states that an Officer in charge of Police Station is under obligation to investigate any case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area, within the limits of such Police Station, would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code. It is stated that the proceedings of a Police Officer cannot be called in question on the ground that the case is one which such officer was not empowered to investigate under this Section. The learned APP presses into service a judgment of the Supreme Court in Satvinder Kaur v. State(N.C.T.) of Delhi, 1999 8 SCC 728 and a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Malkiat Singh v. State, 2005 121 DLT 668. The learned APP argues that although Delhi Court may not have any jurisdiction to try the case, yet the investigation carried out by the IO will not be illegal and the case can be returned to the SHO for presenting it to the Court having jurisdiction.