High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2011-06-27Allowed

Saranya v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:Crl.MC No. 1933 of 2011

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Thomas P. Joseph
Judgment Date: 2011-06-27
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The Paravur police’s action of transmitting the FIR and connected records to Kanjirappally Police and the latter’s registration of Crime No. 366/2011 are set aside. The Kanjirappally police shall retransmit the FIR and records to Paravur Police, who shall comply with the direction under Sec. 156(3) CrPC and submit a final report before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur. The Magistrate may decide, on the totality of facts, whether he has jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
Final Disposition: Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Saranya, D/o Sasidharan, Ittittuvila Veedu, Kottappuram, Paravur, Kollam District

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam
Sub Inspector of Police, Paravur Police Station, Kollam District
Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. C. Rajendran

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri. B. Jayasurya

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Saranya, the de facto complainant, approached the Kerala High Court challenging the order forwarding her complaint to Paravur Police for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and the subsequent transmission of the FIR to Kanjirappally Police, which resulted in two crime numbers (781/2011 and 366/2011). The offences alleged include IPC Sections 498A, 452, 376 and 511 read with Section 34, along with Dowry Prohibition Act Sections 3 and 4. The core issue is jurisdiction: whether Paravur Police had the authority to investigate or whether the matter should be handled by another jurisdiction. The magistrate had directed investigation under 156(3), and the Paravur Police transmitted records to Kanjirappally, where a new FIR was registered. The petitioner argues that part of the cause of action arose at Paravur (paternal home) and that the Paravur jurisdiction should prevail, or at least the magistrate should decide jurisdiction after a final report. The State/Prosecution counters that once the magistrate invoked 156(3), the police are bound to investigate and that the issue of jurisdiction must be resolved by the court ultimately, guided by precedents like Sunitha Kumari Kashyap and Rasiklal Dalpatram Takkur, with the court ultimately directing retransmission to Paravur and allowing the Crl.M.C. 2011 petition to proceed.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC Sec. 498AIPC Sec. 452IPC Sec. 376IPC Sec. 511 read with Sec. 34Dowry Prohibition Act Sec. 3Dowry Prohibition Act Sec. 4CrPC Sec. 156(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the Paravur Judicial First Class Magistrate had directed the Paravur Police to investigate under Section 156(3) CrPC, given that part of the alleged offence and cause of action occurred at Paravur. The completion of investigation was expected to be with Paravur, as the Magistrate had jurisdiction over the facet of the action arising there. It was contended that if the Paravur police did not have jurisdiction, the appropriate course would have been for the Magistrate to decide after a final report. Citing Sunitha Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar, the petitioner emphasized that the 'cause of action' in dowry-related offences can involve multiple locales, and jurisdiction should be determined by the place of action as per averments, not merely by police convenience. The petitioner argued that the order of transmission to Kanjirappally, and the subsequent FIR, improperly shifted the locus of investigation and contravened established principles, which must be corrected by retransmission to Paravur and a fresh final report to the magistrate.

Contentions of Respondents

The State and police counsel contended that once the magistrate directed investigation under 156(3), the police are bound to investigate and cannot simply deny jurisdiction; Rasiklal Dalpatram Takkur v. State of Gujarat was cited to illustrate that an order under 156(3) obliges police to investigate and that jurisdiction is for the court to determine later upon full facts. The respondent highlighted that the Paravur order was intended to facilitate investigation under 156(3) and that the police could not decline jurisdiction. The counsel urged the court to uphold the magistrate’s exercise of power under 156(3) and to ensure proper transmission of records for a final determination on jurisdiction before the learned Magistrate. Ultimately, the Court was urged to direct retransmission to Paravur and to leave the jurisdiction decision to the magistrate taking into account all facts before him.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sunitha Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another	2011 (4) JT 236	Positive	Cited to support the principle that jurisdiction under Sec. 156(3) depends on the place of action/averments in 498A cases and that initial transfer orders must be considered in light of where the facts occurred.
Rasiklal Dalpatram Takkur v. State of Gujarat	2010(1) SCC 1	Positive	Cited to illustrate that when there is an order under Sec.156(3), police cannot claim lack of jurisdiction and must investigate; final jurisdiction lies with the court after the investigation.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Saranya v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH** **MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933** **Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2011()** **-------------------------** **CMP.5512/2011 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PARAVOOR In** **CRIME NO.781/2011 PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT In** **CRIME NO.366/2011 OF KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **...................** ## **PETITIONER/ COMPLAINANT** **--------------------------** **SARANYA, D/O.SASIDHARAN, ITTITTUVILA VEEDU, KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/ STATE** **--------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** **REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.** ## **3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,** **KANJIRAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B. JAYASURYA** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2011** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:** **A1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATECOURT, PARAVUR DT. 7.6.2011** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **smvd** **Crl.MC.No. 1933 of 2011** ## **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.** **==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1933 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 27[th] day of June, 2011** ## **O R D E R** Petitioner is the de facto complainant in C.M.P. No.5512 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur, in Kollam District. She alleged that accused committed offences punishable under Sections 498A, 452, 376 and Section 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Paravur Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). That Police registered Crime No.781 of 2011. Later, on the impression that the place of occurrence is within the local limits of Kanjirappally Police Station, the FIR was transmitted to that Police and the said police registered Crime No.366 of 2011. That action of Paravur Police is called in question in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that the Paravur Police has jurisdiction to investigate the case **CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011** ## -: 2 :- since allegations in the complaint disclose that part of the cause of action has arisen at the paternal house of petitioner at Paravur within the local limits of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur and at any rate since learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur has directed the Paravur Police to investigate into the matter under Sec.156 (3) of the Code, that police was bound to investigate and submit a final report. According to the learned counsel if at all Paravur police had no jurisdiction it was for the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in that regard after submission of the final report. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The Supreme Court in **Sunitha Kumari** ## **Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another** (2011 (4) JT 236) has held that so far as offence under Sec.498A of the IPC is concerned various factors determine the cause of action for the case. In that case due to the harassment and ill-treatment by the husband and in-laws at Ranchi, complainant was taken to her paternal home at Gaya by her husband with a threat of dire consequences for not **CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011** ## -: 3 :- fulfilling demand for dowry. It was held that offences having been committed in more local areas, one of which being Gaya, learned Magistrate at Gaya has jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. Here, learned Magistrate, Paravur forwarded the complaint to the Paravur police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code. It is for the learned Magistrate to decide whether on the averments in the complaint or any part of the cause of action has taken place within the local limits of his jurisdiction. Learned counsel has pointed out that even while petitioner was at her paternal house at Paravur, she was criminally intimidated over telephone. I make it clear that these are matters which learned Judicial First Class Magistrate has to decide at the appropriate stage. 3. When there is an order for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code it is not within the power of the police to say that they have no jurisdiction in the matter. The Supreme Court in **Rasiklal Dalpatram Takkur v. State of Gujrat** (2010(1) SCC 1 - paragraph 33) considered the situations where police registers cases on the information **CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011** -: 4 :- directly given to them and as per order of a Magistrate under Sec.156(3) of the Code. Regarding the latter it is held that when there is an order under Sec.156(3) of the Code, the police could not say that they have no jurisdiction in the matter to investigate. They have to investigate and submit report and then it is for the the court to decide whether it has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as and when the entire facts are placed before it. In the light of the above, action of Paravur police in transmitting the FIR and connected records to the Kanjirappally police cannot stand and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The action taken by the Paravur police in transmitting the FIR and connected records in Crime No.781 of 2011 to the Kanjirappally Police and the latter registering Crime No.366 of 2011 are set aside. The Kanjirappally police shall retransmit the FIR and connected records to the Paravur Police who shall comply with the direction given to it under Sec.156(3) of the Code and submit final report before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur as provided under law. I make it clear that it is open to the ## **CRL.M.C. No.1933 of 2011** **==> picture [41 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paravur to decide on the entire facts being placed before it whether he has jurisdiction to proceed with the case as provided under law. ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.** vsv