IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CrWJC No 804 of 2009 1. HARENDRA TIWARY S/O RAMESHWAR TIWARY VILL.- SAJANDIHRA, P.S.- KARGAHAR (SIRHI), DISTT.- ROHTAS 2. GUDDU TIWARY @ JAI PRAKASH TIWARY S/O RAMESHWAR TIWARY VILL.- SAJANDIHRA, P.S.- KARGAHAR (SIRHI), DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SHAHABAD RANGE, DEHRI-ON AUNSUN 4. THE S. P. ROHTAS 5. THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER KARGAHAR, P.S.- SIDHI, O.P. DISTT.- ROHTAS 6. D.P. DUBEY S/O NOT KNOWN A.S.I., KARGAHAR POLICE STATION, DISTT.- ROHTAS 7. MARKANDEY SHUKLA S/O LATE CHANDRIKA SHUKLA VILL.- SAJANDIHRA, P.S.- KARGAHAR (SIDHI), DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 2 24.11.2009 The petitioners seek quashing of the first information report which has been lodged. Petitioners submit that the Police Officer was incompetent to travel outside his jurisdiction to record the statement of the victim. Here the first information report itself shows that Police Officer, upon information that one person had been shot and grievously injured within his jurisdiction came to know that the said person had moved to Banaras for treatment, went to Banaras, recorded the statement and on basis of the said statement instituted the first information report. The occurrence has allegedly taken place within the jurisdiction of the Police Officer concerned of which he was otherwise competent to investigate. Learned counsel for the petitioners states and submits that as the Police Officer had not taken permission from administrative authority to travel beyond jurisdiction, the first information report should be termed as mala fide. He then submits 2 that petitioners who have been accused in the said first information report are innocent. Their plea of alibi has not been decided. Having considered the matter, I find that the submissions are misconceived in full. Once a Police Officer comes to know of commission of a cognizable offence within his jurisdiction, he not only has the authority to register a case and investigate the same but also it is his duty in terms of Sections 156 read with Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Having gone to Banaras to investigate the case may at best be an irregularity but not an illegality in any chance. The question of verifying alibi is a matter of enquiry in course of investigation upon the first information report. On these grounds, there is no interference called for. The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners should take steps to prove their innocence as they may be entitled to law and as advised by filing representations, however, misconceived they may be. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)