Published on: January 7, 2024 at 13:43 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: State of A.P. V. Punati Ramulu (1994)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Police cannot refuse to record the complaint on the ground that police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. It is held that refusal to record the complaint amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Police. It is held that Section 156(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not prevent the police on the grounds of any lack of territorial jurisdiction, from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction where the crime has been committed.
4. The case as put forward by the prosecution was that PW 1 went to Narasaraopet from the scene of the occurrence. He contacted PW 13 to draft the report addressed to the Circle Inspector of Police. PW 1 was projected by the prosecution as an eyewitness who is the nephew of the deceased and had accompanied the deceased when the latter went to realise debts from the villagers.
On reaching the police station at Narasaraopet he was informed by the constable on duty that the Circle Inspector, PW 22, had already received information about the occurrence and had left for the village. The police constable at the police station refused to record the complaint presented by PW 1 on the ground that the said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime.
It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction, could not have prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra