Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court

"It is no more res-integra that FIR cannot be quashed merely because the place where offence committed is not within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police officer to investigate the offence." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 1, 2026, held that a criminal investigation cannot be stifled at its inception merely because the police station where the FIR was lodged may lack territorial jurisdiction over the place of occurrence.

A bench of Dr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee observed that the mandate of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), specifically Section 173(1), removes any bar on registering an offence regardless of where it was committed.

The Court further emphasized that during the initial stages of an investigation, the High Court exercising its inherent powers should not embark on a mini-trial or act as an investigating agency. The bench noted that as long as the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the investigation must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion.

The dispute arose when a shareholder (Opposite Party No. 2) of Eraaya Lifespaces Limited lodged a complaint alleging that another shareholder, in conspiracy with the company’s directors and officials, had filed a petition before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi, using a forged Special Power of Attorney (SPA). It was alleged that the accused obtained a collusive status quo order from the NCLT to benefit the company by avoiding interest payments and bond conversions. The petitioners, including the company, its directors, CFO, and Company Secretary, moved the High Court to quash the proceedings initiated at Berhampore Police Station, Murshidabad.

The primary question before the court was whether the investigational proceedings should be quashed on the grounds that the allegations were improbable and that the Berhampore Police Station lacked the territorial jurisdiction to investigate since the alleged forgery and NCLT proceedings took place in Delhi. The court was also called upon to determine if the FIR disclosed a prima facie case of conspiracy against the petitioners who were merely respondents in the NCLT proceedings.

High Court Cannot Act As An Investigating Agency At Quashing Stage

The Court observed that while considering a petition for quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 482 of the CrPC), the High Court is not supposed to adjudicate whether the allegations are true or false. Relying on the precedent in M/S Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, the bench noted that the veracity of allegations must be tested during the trial, not at the threshold of an investigation.

"Court Should Not Kill A Stillborn Child"

Quoting the settled legal proposition, the bench remarked that the court should not stifle a legitimate prosecution unless there are compelling circumstances. The bench highlighted that if the allegations have some substance, the investigation should not be shut out, as the police must be given a chance to collect evidence. The Court emphasized that it would be improper to analyze the sustainability of a conviction at such an early stage.

"An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance."

Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction Does Not Invalidate FIR Registration

The petitioners argued that the Berhampore Police Station had no jurisdiction as all accused resided in Delhi and the alleged acts occurred there. However, the Court rejected this, citing Section 173(1) of the BNSS. The bench observed that the words "irrespective of area where the offence is committed" in the new statute empower the police to register an FIR even for offences committed outside their local limits.

Legal Mandate On Zero FIRs And Investigative Duties

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), which held that an FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The bench noted that Section 156(2) of the CrPC (now mirrored in the BNSS) provides a "savings clause," ensuring that an investigation is not interrupted or challenged on the ground that the officer was not empowered to investigate.

"The registration of FIR irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and 'zero FIR' ensures that the course of justice is not impeded by geographical boundaries."

Allegations Of Forgery And Conspiracy Require Proper Probe

Addressing the petitioners’ claim that they were merely respondents in the NCLT and could not have conspired to file a forged document against themselves, the Court noted the complainant's argument that the company was the ultimate beneficiary of the resulting status quo order. The bench held that the alleged nexus between the petitioners and the primary accused regarding the forged SPA and the sharing of confidential company emails constitutes a matter for investigation.

Malafide Of Informant Secondary To Material Evidence

Regarding the petitioners’ contention that the case was filed in a remote location to harass them, the Court relied on Lakhwant Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh. It held that once an offence is registered, the personal motives or malafides of the informant become secondary. The fate of the accused depends on the material collected during the investigation, not the intent of the complainant.

"The allegations of malafide against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis of quashing the proceeding."

The High Court concluded that the allegations in the FIR were neither absurd nor improbable and required a thorough investigation to unearth the truth. Dismissing the quashing petition, the Court directed the investigating agency to conclude the probe at the earliest. The bench reaffirmed that jurisdictional barriers cannot be used to stifle a prima facie cognizable case at the initial stage.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026