Section 173 of the BNSS specifically states that any information relating to the commission of an identifiable offense, regardless of the area where the offense was committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station police. If it is given orally, it must be written down by him or under his direction and read to the informant; and all such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as above, must be signed by the person giving it.

If it is given by electronic communication, it will be recorded by him after being signed within three days by the person who gave it, and its substance will be entered in a book which will be kept by such agent in the form that l ‘State The government may, by rules, prescribe to this effect.

The court, after taking cognizance of the provision, said that as per Section 173(1) BNSS, the police are mandatorily required to register the FIR on receipt of any information relating to the commission of an identifiable offense, regardless of the area where the offense is committed.

“In other words, the police cannot refuse to register an FIR on the ground that they “have no territorial jurisdiction” over the offense on the grounds that part of the offense was committed outside of the local jurisdiction of the police station concerned.“, underlined the court.

The court noted that under Section 173 (3) BNSS, on receipt of information relating to the commission of a cognizable offense for offenses punishable by three years or more but less than seven years, the officer responsible person may, with the prior permission of the Deputy Superintendent The Ministry of Police will conduct a preliminary investigation within fourteen days to determine whether there is a prima facie case and will continue the investigation where one exists. He noted that Section 173(4) provides that the complainant may file an application with the Magistrate for registering an FIR if the Commissioner of Police fails to investigate the matter or direct a junior police officer to investigate, in accordance with the BNSS.

The court was hearing the bank’s plea that Vatakara police had registered an FIR against Bank of Maharashtra branch manager Vatakara for allegedly replacing 26,244.20 grams of gold jewelry worth Rs. 17,20,35,717 which were pledged by customers possessing counterfeit gold jewelry. Police seized gold from Thrippur and Kanagayam branches of DBS Bank India on the grounds that they were stolen goods and were part of the gold embezzled by the manager of the Vatakra branch of the Bank of Maharashtra. The gold was deposited with DBS bank to obtain a loan.

DBS bank tried to get an FIR registered at Tiruppur police station against the 56 customers who pledged this gold and availed the loan. The bank alleged that the customers had committed crimes of criminal conspiracy and cheating. However, the police did not register the FIR and asked them to contact Vatakara police to register the case. The Bank approached the Vatakara police station to register the FIR. However, there was no response. The bank then filed an application in the Vatakara Magistrate’s Court for registration of the FIR. However, the magistrate dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. The magistrate observed that the Tamil Nadu police were competent. Against this order, the Bank approached the High Court.

The Court observed that the loan amount sanctioned by DNS Bank was deposited in bank accounts in Vatakara. The gold seized from the bank is at the Vatakara police station. The Court observed that since part of the offense is committed within the jurisdiction of Vatakara, the Vatakara Magistrate’s Court has jurisdiction to investigate under Section 198(b) of the BNSS.

The Court further observed that under Section 200 of the BNSS, where an offense constitutes an offense in relation to another offence, it may be investigated or tried before any court in the jurisdiction from which one or the other act was performed. The court held that pledging gold with DNB bank was an offense as it was stolen property in the FIR registered at Vatakara police station.

The Court set aside the magistrate’s order and ordered him to re-examine the matter.

Case No: WP (Crl.) 1159 of 2024

Case Title: DBS Bank India Ltd v. State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 784

Click here to read/download the order