Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court on Friday held that the surrender petitions filed by the accused, who have voluntarily surrendered before a Magistrate having no jurisdiction to try the case, are not maintainable.

The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that magistrates in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry cannot remand individuals who voluntarily surrender in criminal cases investigated outside their jurisdiction.

Justice Venkatesh emphasized that magistrates can only invoke their remand powers under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure when suspects are produced by the police, not when they surrender voluntarily. If an accused voluntarily appears before a magistrate with no jurisdiction, the magistrate can direct the nearest police station to take custody, following Police Standing Orders, he clarified.

The Police Standing Orders empower Station House Officers to arrest suspects for serious offences and prevent absconding, notifying the jurisdictional magistrate of the pending investigation.

"In the context of cases concerning offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a person accused of an offence, who has not been forwarded under Section 167(1) Cr.P.C, and who voluntarily appears and files a surrender petition before the Magistrate cannot be dealt with under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C," the judge ordered. 

However, the judge clarified that these directions apply only to cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not under special laws like the Customs Act, 1962, and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Justice Venkatesh instructed judicial magistrates in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to adhere strictly to his directions.

The high court tasked the court's Registrar General to place this order before Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala for approval and circulation among all judicial officers.

The order was passed in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC by the State calling into question an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam accepting the surrender of four accused persons and remanding them to judicial custody under Section 167(2) CrPC.

State Public Prosecutor (SPP) Hassan Mohamed Jinnah argued that in many grave offences the accused, who are often habitual criminals, adopt the tactic of surrendering before Judicial Magistrates having no territorial jurisdiction over the case and offer themselves for remand and based on surrender petitions filed by the accused, Magistrates exercise power under Section 167(2) CrPC to remand them. 

This is a clever device adopted by criminals to get themselves remanded to judicial custody under Section 167(2) precluding police remand as by the time the jurisdictional police become aware of their surrender, the period prescribed under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC starts running, he contended.

The SPP argued that this practice creates a hindrance to effective investigations in heinous crimes due to suspects surrendering before unrelated magistrates.

Regarding the case in hand, court held that the surrender petitions filed by the accused, who had voluntarily surrendered were not maintainable. 

"No order of remand can be passed by the Magistrate under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C on such petitions, in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of W.B. v. Dinesh Dalmia, (2007) 5 SCC 773, Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314and KA Rauf Sherif v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) 6 SCC 92," it noted.

Case Title: The State of Tamil Nadu v. Muneeswaran and Others