# Taiyab v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 805
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3298 of 2003
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Rajes Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/taiyab-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40206
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article 226-Read
with
Section
178
Cr.P.C.-Territorial
Jurisdiction-F.I.R.
Lodged
against
petitioner at New Delhi and Ghaziabadwhether Delhi Police or the U.P. Police
has jurisdiction to investigate? -HeldBoth the state's Police have jurisdiction
to investigate.

Held- Para 15

Investigation is a preliminary stage in
the detection of a crime. So far as
investigation into any crime or offence is
concerned, it is purely for the collection
of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is
done by Delhi police or U.P. Police. Till
the stage of investigation, question of
prejudice is not likely to arise.

In cases like this, both the State's police
has jurisdiction to investigate, there is
no doubt in the legal position.
Case Law:
AIR 1957 S.C. 196,
AIR 1966 SC 128,
AIR 1967 Delhi 88,
AIR 1923 Mad 666,
AIR 1959 AP 657,
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
AIR 1958 Mad 155

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Taiyab V. State of U.P. and others
805
14. Since the allegations in the writ
petition are un rebutted we have to accept
the same. Thus it must be held that there
was no tender before awarding the
contract to the respondents 6 and 7 and
evidently
it
was
done
by
private
negotiations and in collusion with the
authority concerned. Hence any contract
awarded to respondents 6 and 7 are
consequently quashed.

15. The petition is allowed. The
respondents 6 and 7 are restrained from
functioning as transport contractors of the
department.

16. Since this petition has brought to
light a case of flagrant violation of law
and grant of public contracts illegally we
direct the Secretary, Food and Civil
Supply, U.P. to order a thorough
investigation into the matter and strong
legal action against those responsible for
those
illegalities,
must
be
taken.
Compliance report must be sent to this
Court at the earliest.

Let a copy of this judgement be sent
by the Registrar General of this to the
Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, and
Chief Secretary, U.P. forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3298 of
2003

Taiyab

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Tripathi
Sri V.P. Srivastva

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India Article 226-Read
with
Section
178
Cr.P.C.-Territorial
Jurisdiction-F.I.R.
Lodged
against
petitioner at New Delhi and Ghaziabadwhether Delhi Police or the U.P. Police
has jurisdiction to investigate? -HeldBoth the state's Police have jurisdiction
to investigate.

Held- Para 15

Investigation is a preliminary stage in
the detection of a crime. So far as
investigation into any crime or offence is
concerned, it is purely for the collection
of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is
done by Delhi police or U.P. Police. Till
the stage of investigation, question of
prejudice is not likely to arise.

In cases like this, both the State's police
has jurisdiction to investigate, there is
no doubt in the legal position.
Case Law:
AIR 1957 S.C. 196,
AIR 1966 SC 128,
AIR 1967 Delhi 88,
AIR 1923 Mad 666,
AIR 1959 AP 657,
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
AIR 1958 Mad 155

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for restraining the Delhi Police from
investigating the matter in pursuance of
the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. Nil of 2003,
under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.,
registered at Police Station Masoori,
District Ghaziabad, U.P.

2. The facts as alleged in the petition
and are revealed by the documents
annexed by the petitioner himself, remain
that on 25.5.2003 a report of 'gumsudgi'
was lodged at Police Station Paschim
Vihar, New Delhi by the wife of deceased
Sanjay Gupta, Smt Ritu Gupta, wherein it
was mentioned that in the evening of
25.5.2003 her husband Sanjay Gupta, had
gone along with two persons, namely,
Aman Bhardwaj and Taiyab (petitioner),
who were known to him, in a Maruti Car
of white colour, bearing No. DL 3 CT
4150. While leaving the house, the
deceased told his mother that he would
come back soon. When he did not return,
the deceased's wife phoned on his mobile
at about mid night. Deceased told her that
he was in NOIDA and would return home
soon. But he did not come back. In view
of the information the report of missing of
Sanjay
Gupta
was
registered
on
25.5.2003. The dead body of the deceased
was found within territorial jurisdiction of
Police
Station
Masoori,
District
Ghaziabad and an F.I.R. was lodged at the
said Police Station under Section 302 read
with Section 201 I.P.C. by deceased's
brother giving all those details which had
been given by deceased's wife at Police
Station Paschim Vihar, New Delhi earlier
alleging that Taiyab and co-accused
Aman Bharadwaj had committed the said
murder. The Delhi Police, respondent no.
3, started the investigation. Hence this
petition.

3. Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that as the dead body of said
Sanjay Gupta was found within the
territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Masoori,
District Ghaziabad, the said Police Station
alone has a competence to investigate the
crime, hence investigation being carried
out by the respondent no. 3 is without
competence, and therefore, respondent
no.3 be restrained from investigating the
matter.

4. On the contrary, it has been
submitted by the learned Additional
Government Advocate that petitioner and
Aman Bharadwaj had gone to the house
of the deceased, and taken him from
there. As at what place, time and for what
reason the murder has been committed
would be revealed only in investigation.
Merely because the dead body was found
in District Ghaziabad, that does not
deprive the Delhi Police to investigate
into the matter as the commencement of
the offence had started from Delhi,
therefore,
petition
is
liable
to
be
dismissed.

5. This is a settled legal proposition
that lodging of F.I.R. under Section 154
Cr.P.C. is a statutory right and report can
be lodged/registered before any Police
Station in India, but if the Police Station
where it is lodged comes to the
conclusion
that
offence
has
been
committed
within
the
territorial
jurisdiction of some other Police Station,
it would transmit the F.I.R. there.
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Taiyab V. State of U.P. and others
807
6. Section 178 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
called the Cr.P.C.) provides for a place of
enquiry or trial and reads as under:-

(a) when it is uncertain in which of
several local areas an offence was
committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly
in one local area and partly in
another, or
(c) where an offence is continuing one
and continues to be committed in
more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done
in several local areas,
(e) it may be enquired into or tried by a
Court having jurisdiction over any of
such local area.

7. Therefore, it becomes clear that
where it is uncertain that in what area
offence has been committed, or where
offence has been committed partly in one
area and partly in another area, then
enquiry and trial may be held in any of
the said areas. Therefore, the scope and
applicability of this provision seems to be
to resolve the difficulty that may arise in a
case where there is a conflict in respect of
commission of an offence between
different areas, or partly committed in one
area or in several places, the accused may
not
go
scot-free
and
escape
the
punishment on a technical ground of
competence/jurisdiction, and in such a
case, enquiry or trial may be held at either
or any of those places. The provisions of
Section 178 Cr.P.C. are analogous to the
provisions of Section 67 of old Code of
1872 and Illustration A thereof provided
that an offence committed in the course of
a journey or voyage had to be treated as
fallen within the purview of the Section
and it was provided that it could be tried
or enquired into by any Court in whose
jurisdiction the offender passed in the
course of the journey or voyage. In fact,
this provision is a specific one and
supplemental to the 3rd clause of Section
181 (2) of the Code. In this case it
remains uncertain as to at which particular
place
offence
has
actually
been
committed, petitioner may be tried at any
of those places covered by him in the
course of his journey.

8. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
K.P. Ghiara, AIR 1957 SC 196, the
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with
the case of embezzlement, held that in the
circumstances when it was not certain that
an
offence
of
embezzlement
was
committed at Bombay or Nagpur, the
jurisdiction of trial or enquiry may be
held at either of those places.

9. In Mangaldas Raghavji Ruprel
Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors, AIR
1966 SC 128, a Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically
held that in a matter where it is not certain
as to where the offence actually occurred,
it becomes immaterial at what place the
trial is held. The Court should keep its
hands off unless prejudice has resulted to
the accused thereby and for determining
whether failure of justice has resulted, the
Court is required to have regard to the fact
as to whether objection has been raised at
the trial, and in case no objection has been
raised, it would be legitimate to presume
that
the
accused
apprehended
no
prejudice.

10. In State of Delhi Administration
Vs. Sinha Govindji, AIR 1967 Delhi 88 it
was held that the Court in whose
jurisdiction even an offence has partly
been committed, would have jurisdiction
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
to hold a trial or enquiry. In case a
defamatory letter is posted at A to be read
at B, the offence can be tried either at
place A or B (Vide M.R. Krishnamurthi
Iyar Vs. C.V. Parasurama Iyar, AIR 1923
Mad.
666;
and
Pisupati
Purnaiah
Sidhanthi Vs. Pisupati Satyanarayana
Sidhanthi, AIR 1959 AP 657).

11. In The Public Prosecutor Vs.
T.A. Rathnam Pillai, AIR 1958 Mad 155,
it was held that where an offence is a
continuing offence, it may be enquired
into or tried in any local area in which it
continues to be committed.

12. Thus in view of the above, an
inference can be drawn that any Court, in
whose territorial jurisdiction an offence
has partly been committed, would have
jurisdiction to hold the trial or enquiry. It
appears that the provisions of Cr.P.C. are
analogous to the provisions of Section 20
of the Code of Civil Procedure, which
provides that Courts have a territorial
jurisdiction where the cause of action has
arisen fully or partly.

13. In the instant case, if examined
in the light of aforesaid settled legal
proposition, it remains undisputed that the
accused had gone to the house of the
deceased at Delhi and taken him with
them from there. His wife has lodged the
report of his missing at Police Station
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and it is a
matter of investigation as to with what
intent the accused had gone to the
deceased's house and where, in fact, the
offence has been committed.

14. We are of the considered opinion
that in this fact situation Delhi Police has
a competence to investigate into the
matter. More so, learned counsel for the
petitioner failed to satisfy us as what is
the right of the accused to choose the
investigating agency in such a case and
what is the prejudice which is likely to
occur to him if the investigation is carried
out by the Delhi Police and the trial is
held in Delhi.

15. Investigation is a preliminary
stage in the detection of a crime. So far as
investigation into any crime or offence is
concerned, it is purely for the collection
of evidence. It is immaterial whether it is
done by Delhi police or U.P. police. Till
the stage of investigation, question of
prejudice is not likely to arise. It generally
occurs at the stage of trial. It is more so in
the cases like the one at hand. Here there
are two F.I.R., one of gumshudgi, lodged
by the wife, and the other lodged at
Ghaziabad by the brother of the deceased.
In cases like this, both the State's police
has jurisdiction to investigate, there is no
doubt in the legal position.

16. Petition is totally misconceived,
lacks merit, and therefore, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13397 of 1993

Madhuwan Nagar Sahkari Avas Samiti
Ltd. Agra and another
...Petitioner
Versus
Agra Development Authority, Agra and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri B.D. Mandhyan