IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.1115 of 2008 1.Rajeev Ranjan, son of Sri Baraj Kishore Ojha 2.Rakesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Kumar, son of Sri Baraj Kishore Ojha 3.Smt.Divya Kumari, wife of Rakesh Ranjan @ Rakesh Ranjan 4.Smt.Parwati Devi, wife of Sri Baraj Kishore Ojha all are resident of village- Khabra, P.S. Khabra, District- Muzaffarpur ………… Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3.The Superintendent of Police, Supaul, Bihar 4.The Officer Incharge, Supaul Police Station ………. Respondents-1st set 5.Smita Kumari D/O Subodh Chandra Chouhdary, resident of village- Mahavir Chowk, P.S. Supaul (Town), District- Supaul ……… Respondent-2nd set ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md.Imteyaz Ahmad and Amit Kumar, Advocates For the State : Ms Juli Kumari, Adv. For Respondent No.5: M/s Murari Narain Chaudhary and Vijay Kumar, Advocates ----------- 5. 04/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 lodged information with Supaul Police alleging torture and harassment for demand of dowry at the hands of the petitioners and others. The same was registered by the police as Supaul P.S.Case No.248 of 2008 on 14.10.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the information which was lodged by - 2 - respondent no.5 with the police does not show that any incident constituting an offence had happened within the jurisdiction of Supaul Police Station. He has placed the F.I.R. in detail. From the F.I.R. it appears that all the incidents which respondent no.5 has alleged towards demand of dowry, torture etc. is of Muzaffarpur i.e. at her matrimonial home. It is said in the F.I.R. that when she was tortured enough at her matrimonial home, she called her father and her father brought her back in Supaul. There is no whisper in the F.I.R. that any torture and harassment was caused to her at Supaul by petitioners and other family members directly or indirectly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr., reported in (2004)8 S.C.C.100, in a case of 498A I.P.C. itself, and has contended that since no cause of action for the incident is alleged to have arisen within the jurisdiction of Supaul Police Station, Supaul police has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, - 3 - register F.I.R. and investigate the matter. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that Supaul Police has completed investigation in the case and during investigation some statements have been made by some witnesses that even at Supaul the informant had received telephonic calls causing harassment to her. Therefore, offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code being a continuing offence, Supaul police has jurisdiction. The submission in respect of continuing offence in terms of section 178(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above judgment and negatived. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has referred to a judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ganesh Mahto Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2009(4) PLJR 521, to contend that if evidence has come during investigation creating some jurisdiction in the Police to register the case and investigate, F.I.R. cannot be quashed on the ground that it did not contain any cause of action for creating jurisdiction. - 4 - From the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court, as referred to above by learned counsel for private respondent, it appears that learned single Judge had accepted the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.Abraham Ajith (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner but on the facts of the case, learned single Judge has found that it was not a fit case where F.I.R. should be quashed. It is well established that jurisdiction of police to investigate a case is created by contents of the F.I.R. Subsequent statement by a witness during investigation does not create fresh jurisdiction if it was lacking from before. Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly considered the proposition of law with regard to jurisdiction of police to investigate the case when no cause of action was alleged to have occurred in its jurisdiction. However, mere absence of jurisdiction in an F.I.R. does not stop police from instituting the F.I.R. It is the duty of the police to receive the complaint and, if complaint makes out a cognizable offence, it has to register the - 5 - case. After registering the case or after investigation if it is found that cause of action lies within the jurisdiction of any other Police Station, police is duty bound to transfer the case to the concerned Police Station for proceeding further in the matter and for submission of final report. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that investigation in this case is complete but the police have not submitted any final report. Therefore, instead of quashing the F.I.R., this Court directs the Investigating Officer/Officer-in-charge of Supaul Police Station to forward the records of the case to the concerned Police Station with the case diary recorded during investigation so far, for further action in the matter. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)