The much awaited judgment for which the whole nation was eagerly waiting for has finally arrived .On 14th June 2020 we lost our very talented actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The family registered an FIR against Rhea chakraborty (dated 25.7.2020) under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) registered at the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna. Rhea chakraborty moved to the Apex court for transfer of the FIR registered in Bihar to Maharashtra . The Supreme Court has finally come up with the verdict.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
This is a brief case summary on the judgment of the court:
FACTS OF THE CASE
A transfer petition was filed by Rhea chakraborty under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 for the transfer of FIR under section 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and all consequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar, to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra Mumbai.
Lets first understand what does section 406 of crpc talks about :
Power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals.
- Whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that an order under this section is expedient for the ends of justice, it may direct that any particular case or appeal be transferred from one High Court to another High Court or from a Criminal Court subordinate to one High Court to another Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction subordinate to another High Court.
- The Supreme Court may act under this section only on the application of the Attorney- General of India or of a party interested, and every such application shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney- General of India or the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
- Where any application for the exercise of the powers conferred by this section is dismissed, the Supreme Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider appropriate In the circumstances of the case.
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHLAF OF PETITIONER
- The petitioner submitted that the incidents alleged in the Complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, have taken place entirely within the jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra and therefore, the Complaint as received, should have been forwarded to the jurisdictional police station at Bandra, Mumbai for conducting the investigation.
- The petitioner further contends that since the Bihar police lacked jurisdiction to investigate the allegations in the Complaint, the transfer of the investigation to the CBI on Bihar Government’s consent, would not amount to a lawful consent of the State government, under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Act, 1946 (for short “DSPE Act”).
- The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of petitioner submits that justice needs to be done in this case and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked by the Court.
- The petitioner further contended that In course of the inquiry, the statements of 56 persons were recorded and other evidence such as the Post Mortem report, Forensic report etc have been collected. If the inquiry discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the Mumbai police will register a FIR.
- Pointing towards potential misuse, the counsel submits that if registration of Complaint in another state is permitted, it will enable a person to choose the investigating authority and will obstruct exercise of lawful jurisdiction by the local police. This will impact the country’s federal structure.
SUBMISSIONS ON BHEALF OF RESPONDENT :
- Representing the State of Bihar, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Complaint disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore, it was incumbent for the Patna Police to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation.
- The Senior Counsel highlights that the Mumbai Police was conducting the enquiry into the unnatural death of the actor u/s 174, 175 CrPC and such proceeding being limited to ascertaining the cause of death, does not empower Mumbai Police to undertake any investigation, on the allegations in the Complaint of the Respondent No 2, without registration of an FIR at Mumbai.
- On that basis, the Bihar Government’s consent for entrustment of the investigation to the CBI is submitted to satisfy the requirement of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Besides, as the petitioner herself has called for a CBI investigation and as the CBI has since registered a case and commenced their investigation, (on the request of the State of Bihar), the Senior Counsel submits that this transfer petition is infructuous.
- The inquiry by the Mumbai Police under section 174 of the CrPC is not an investigation of the complainant’s allegations and therefore the registration of the case and investigation into those allegations by the Bihar Police is contended to be justified. Since only an investigation (not a case or appeal) is pending at Patna, and a legally competent investigation has commenced, invocation of Section 406 power by this Court to transfer the investigation, is projected to be not merited.
- Mr Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of India, appears for the Union of India and the CBI. He projects that the Maharashtra Police is yet to register any FIR but is conducting only a limited inquiry under section 174 of the CrPC, into the unnatural death of the actor. In the absence of any FIR by the Mumbai Police following the death of the actor on 14.06.2020, the FIR registered at Patna at the instance of the deceased’s father is projected to be the only one pending. He therefore contends that the present matter does not relate to two cases pending in two different states.
- Referring to the contradictory stand and the parallel allegation of state’s Police being influenced by external factors in both states, Mr. Mehta submits that this itself justifies entrustment of the investigation to an independent Central Agency.
- The learned Solicitor General then points out that by acceding to the request made by the State of Bihar, the CBI has registered the FIR and commenced investigation Besides the Directorate of Enforcement, a central agency, is also acting under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- The learned senior counsel on behalf of the centre therefore argues that a fair and impartial inquiry can be ensured if the police of either state are kept away from investigating the alleged crime, relating to the suspicious death of the film actor. Adverting to the affidavit of the Maharashtra Police that they have recorded the statements of 56 persons in the section 174 proceedings, the Solicitor General submits that since FIR is not yet registered and the Mumbai Police is discharging limited functions under section 174 of the CrPC, the investigation of any alleged crime following registration of FIR is yet to legally commence in Mumbai and as such, there is no case pending in the State of Maharashtra which can justify the invocation of powers under section 406 of the CrPC.
ISSUES TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON
- Whether this Court has power to transfer investigation (not case or appeal) under Section 406 of the CrPC;
- Whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the unnatural death, can be termed as an investigation;
- Whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Patna Police to register the FIR and commence investigation of the alleged incidents which took place in Mumbai? As a corollary, what is the status of the investigation by the CBI on the consent given by the Bihar government; and
- What is the scope of the power of a single judge exercising jurisdiction under section 406 of the CrPC and whether this Court can issue direction for doing complete justice, in exercise of plenary power.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
The Judgement
The court said the Transfer of investigation to the CBI cannot be a routine occurrence but should be in exceptional circumstances. It is also the consistent view of the Court that it is not for the accused to choose the investigating agency.
Referring to the judgment Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online SC 462 One factor which however is considered relevant for induction of the Central Agency is to retain “public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies”.
1. Dealing with the first issue regarding transfer of investigation under section 406 Crpc said that the scope of exercise of this power is for securing the ends of justice . The court referring to the case Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 2 SCC 35 concluded that only cases and appeals can be transferred .
- Section 406 CrPC empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. The scope of exercise of this power is for securing the ends of justice. The precedents suggest that transfer plea under Section 406 CrPC were granted in cases where the Court believed that the trial may be prejudiced and fair and impartial proceedings cannot be carried on, if the trial continues. However, transfer of investigation on the other hand was negated by this Court in the case of Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 2 SCC 35. Writing the judgment Justice V R Krishna Iyer, declared that:-
- “The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court with power under Section 406 to transfer a case or appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate to one High Court to another High Court or to a Court subordinate thereto. But, it does not clothe this Court with the power to transfer investigations from one police station to another in the country simply because the first information or a remand report is for warded to a Court. The application before us stems from a misconception about the scope of Section 406. There is as yet no case pending before any Court as has been made clear in the counter affidavit of the State of Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit, nothing can be done except to dismiss this petition. “ 2. If the petitioners are being directed to appear in a far-off court during investigator stage it is for them to move that court for appropriate orders so that they may not be tormented by long travel or otherwise teased by judicial process. If justice is denied there are other redresses, not under Section 406, though it is unfortunate that the petitioners have not chosen to move that court to be absolved from appearance until necessitated by the circumstances or the progress of the investigation. To come to this Court directly seeking an order of transfer is travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that if the second petitioner is ailing, as is represented, and this fact is brought to the notice of the Court which has directed her appearance, just orders will be passed in case there is veracity behind the representation. We need hardly say courts should use their processes to the purpose of advancing justice, not to harass parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for transfer is concerned. there is no merit we can see and so we dismiss it.”
Wanted To Stay Updated & Gain Knowledge. Join Our What'sApp Group Here.
2. Dealing with the second issue regarding the scope of section 174 Crpc the court said the proceedings under section 174 are limited only up to the inquiry not investigation. The Mumbai police has neither registered any FIR nor considered the matter under section 175(2).
- In the present case, the Mumbai Police has attempted to stretch the purview of Section 174 without drawing up any FIR and therefore, as it appears, no investigation pursuant to commission of a cognizable offence is being carried out by the Mumbai police. They are yet to register a FIR. Nor they have made a suitable determination, in terms of Section 175(2) CrPC. Therefore, it is pre-emptive and premature to hold that a parallel investigation is being carried out by the Mumbai Police. In case of a future possibility of cognizance being taken by two courts in different jurisdictions, the issue could be resolved under Section 186 CrPC and other applicable laws. No opinion is therefore expressed on a future contingency and the issue is left open to be decided, if needed, in accordance with law.
- Following the above, it is declared that the inquiry conducted under Section 174 CrPC by the Mumbai police is limited for a definite purpose but is not an investigation of a crime under Section 157 of the CrPC.
3. Dealing with the third issue which is regarding the jurisdiction of Patna police to register the FIR the court held as there was a complaint regarding commission of a cognizable offence it was incumbent for the police to register the FIR .the court referred to the judgment of Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 in this regard .
- Registration of FIR is mandated when information on cognizable offence is received by the police. Precedents suggest that at the stage of investigation, it cannot be said that the concerned police station does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the case. On this aspect the ratio in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 is relevant where on behalf of the Constitution Bench, Chief Justice P Sathasivam, pronounced as under:-
- The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
- If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
Join our Social Feeds for Daily Quizzes & More Here.
4. The court referred to Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 , Y Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100, Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha (2007) 5 SCC 786 and held that that a police officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on territorial ground and the issue can be decided after conclusion of the investigation.
- Once again, in Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC 1, while approving the earlier decisions in Satvinder Kaur(supra) in the judgment rendered by Justice Altamas Kabir as he was then, the Supreme Court made it very clear that a police officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on territorial ground and the issue can be decided after conclusion of the investigation. It was thus held:- “27. In our view, both the trial court as well as the Bombay High Court had correctly interpreted the provisions of Section 156 CrPC to hold that it was not within the jurisdiction of the investigating agency to refrain itself from holding a proper and complete investigation merely upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences had been committed d beyond its territorial jurisdiction.”
5. The court further added that as there are allegations regarding breach of trust and misappropriation of money which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where the Complainant resides), could prima facie indicate the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna police.
6. The Patna police committed no illegality in registering the Complaint. The court said that looking at the nature of the allegations the exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.
7. The apex court regarding jurisdiction of Mumbai police said as most of the of the transactions/incidents alleged in the Complaint occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra the Mumbai police is competent to investigate , but so far the inquiry has not resulted in any FIR.
8. The apex court further adjudicated upon the transfer of case to the CBI said As the CBI has already registered a case and commenced investigation at the instance of the Bihar government, uncertainty and confusion must be avoided in the event of Mumbai Police also deciding to simultaneously investigate the cognizable offence, based on their finding in the inquiry proceeding. Therefore, it would be appropriate to decide at this stage itself as to who should conduct the investigation on all the attending circumstances relating to the death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput. This issue becomes relevant only if another FIR is registered on the same issue, at Mumbai.
9. Referring to the judgment of K.V. Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 480 , the court said While the steps taken by the Mumbai police in the limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC may not be faulted on the material available before this Court, considering the apprehension voiced by the stakeholders of unfair investigation, this Court must strive to ensure that search for the truth is undertaken by an independent agency, not controlled by either of the two state governments. Most importantly, the credibility of the investigation and the investigating authority must be protected.
- The ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful. In the event a new case is registered at Mumbai on the same issue, in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate if the latter case too gets investigated by the same agency, on the strength of this Court’s order. Such enabling order will make it possible for the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring consent from the State of Maharashtra.
10. While adjudicating upon the fourth and the final issue regarding inherent power of this court to referred to the judgment of Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 8 SCC 781, held that the the Supreme Court in a deserving case, can invoke Article 142 powers to render justice. The peculiar circumstances in this case require that complete justice is done in this matter. How this is to be achieved must now be decided.
Conclusion
ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE TRUTH, the takeover by CBI has given his friends, family and his fans a hope that the truth shall prevail. Legal experts have come up with the loopholes in the theory of suicide. It is being alleged that is was a murder. A number of theories have been put forward regarding the actual facts of the case, but only the time and now the CBI probe will lead us to the truth. The supreme court while concluding the judgment said :
- The actor Sushant Singh Rajput was a talented actor in the Mumbai film world and died well before his full potential could be realised. His family, friends and admirers are keenly waiting the outcome of the investigation so that all the speculations floating around can be put to rest. Therefore a fair, competent and impartial investigation is the need of the hour. The expected outcome then would be, a measure of justice for the Complainant, who lost his only son. For the petitioner too, it will be the desired justice as she herself called for a CBI investigation. The dissemination of the real facts through unbiased investigation would certainly result in justice for the innocents, who might be the target of vilification campaign. Equally importantly, when integrity and credibility of the investigation is discernible, the trust, faith and confidence of the common man in the judicial process will resonate. When truth meets sunshine, justice will not prevail on the living alone but after Life’s fitful fever, now the departed will also sleep well. Satyameva Jayate.
0 Comments