National

Interstate Police Probes Without Local Jurisdiction Lack Legal Standing: Karnataka High Court

By The Legal Alpha Web Desk · 3 November 2026 · 5 min read
Interstate Police Probes Without Local Jurisdiction Lack Legal Standing: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that investigative actions and seizures conducted by an out-of-state police department without coordinating with or involving local territorial police cannot be sustained under law.

The ruling came on petitions filed by two Tumakuru-based commercial firms, Shiva Enterprises and Siddhi Agencies, alongside their partners. Investigators from the Vadagaon police station in Maharashtra had traveled to Tumakuru in Karnataka in connection with an FIR registered under the Food Safety and Standards Act (FSSA) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While conducting an operation at the business premises, the Maharashtra police team seized commercial ledgers, recorded statements from the partners, and directed them to report to the police station in Maharashtra. The petitioners challenged this action before the High Court on the ground that the search, seizure, and interrogation were executed unilaterally, completely bypassing the local jurisdictional police in Karnataka.

Legal Topic

  • Area of Law: Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law

  • Sub-topic: Cross-Border Police Powers, Inter-State Search and Seizure, Territorial Jurisdiction

Core Legal Issue

The legal question before the High Court was whether police investigating an offence in one state can conduct search, seizure, and witness examination across state borders without requisitioning, notifying, or acting through the local police having territorial jurisdiction over that area.

Specifically, the Court examined whether statements recorded and business records seized during such an uncoordinated inter-state operation are legally sustainable, and whether an out-of-state investigating officer can compel the attendance of witnesses residing well beyond their local jurisdictional limits under the criminal procedural code.

What Did the Court Decide?

Justice Suraj Govindaraj partly allowed the petitions and set aside the unilateral actions taken by the visiting police officers:

  • The Court held that statements recorded from the partners and individuals during the raid, in the absence of the local jurisdictional police, cannot be treated as lawful.

  • The High Court ruled that investigative procedures conducted in another state's territory without compliance with the statutory framework governing inter-state searches are unsustainable.

  • While the Court invalidated the flawed procedural steps, it declined the petitioners' plea to quash the substantive FIR or derail the entire investigation initiated in Maharashtra.

  • The bench also refused to grant an unconditional blanket injunction barring Maharashtra police from contacting the petitioners, clarifying that lawful investigatory steps remain open if executed strictly in accordance with statutory requirements and inter-jurisdictional protocols.

Key Legal Points

  • Territorial Primacy: Investigating agencies do not possess unbridled pan-India authority to conduct coercive search and seizure operations without engaging the territorial police who hold jurisdiction over the local area.

  • Inadmissibility of Procedurally Tainted Steps: Questioning witnesses and obtaining business documents during cross-border operations without local police oversight renders such procedural actions legally defective.

  • Limits on Compelling Witness Attendance: Statutory powers empowering police officers to summon individuals or witnesses cannot be extended arbitrarily beyond the geographic bounds defined by criminal procedural law.

  • Proportional Relief: Procedural irregularities committed during an inter-state search vitiate the specific unlawful seizures and statements, but do not automatically warrant the complete quashing of an otherwise valid FIR.

Relevant Law

  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Primary penal provisions invoked in the underlying FIR.

  • Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) / Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Police officer’s power to require attendance of witnesses residing within the limits of the officer's own or adjoining station limits.

  • Section 185 / Section 186 of the BNSS (corresponding to Sections 165 and 166 of the CrPC): Statutory framework governing search procedures beyond local station limits and requisitions to out-of-state police authorities.

  • Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA): Underlying regulatory provisions concerning product standards and trade prohibitions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners (Shiva Enterprises & Siddhi Agencies)

The petitioners submitted that officers of the Vadagaon police station acted without territorial authority by arriving at Tumakuru and conducting coercive actions without intimating or involving the Karnataka State Police. They contended that seizing ledgers, extracting on-spot statements, and directing partners to appear in Maharashtra violated settled criminal procedure governing extraterritorial investigations, requiring the entire proceedings against them to be quashed.

Respondent State Authorities

The authorities argued that the investigating team was acting in furtherance of a lawfully registered criminal case concerning alleged offences under the FSSA and BNS. The State maintained that investigating officers possess the statutory duty to follow supply and distribution chains across state lines to unearth evidence, and that procedural lapses should not bar the investigation or provide immunity to commercial entities involved in cross-border trade.

Why Does It Matter?

This decision underscores clear institutional boundaries for police agencies operating across state lines. In commercial and regulatory offences—such as goods transport, pan masala distribution, taxation, and cyber disputes—investigating officers frequently conduct inter-state searches.

By ruling that actions undertaken without local police coordination are legally unsustainable, the High Court prevents inter-state "fly-in, fly-out" seizures that bypass constitutional federal safeguards and statutory cross-border protocols. At the same time, by refusing to quash the substantive FIR, the judgment preserves the police’s power to investigate crimes as long as they follow the mandatory procedural route via local authorities.

Legal Takeaway

External state police cannot conduct uncoordinated search and seizure operations in another jurisdiction. Any statements recorded or materials seized without following established inter-state procedural mandates will be deemed unlawful and procedurally unsustainable.

Sources

  • Primary Source: Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in petitions filed by Shiva Enterprises & Siddhi Agencies (Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj).

  • Additional Sources: High Court case records and judicial proceedings concerning inter-state criminal procedure compliance under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita / CrPC.

Related reporting