you may also download it as well from the following link
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/15928/15928_2020_36_1501_23473_Judgement_19-Aug-2020.pdf
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Transfer Petition
(Crl.) No.225 of 2020 Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh
Roy, J.
1.
This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”) read with Order XXXIX
of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 with prayer for transfer
of the FIR No. 241 of 2020 (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 and all
Signature Not Verified
Digitally scigneod bynsequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the
17:57:44 IST
Reason:
Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar,
to the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra
Mumbai. The matter relates to the unnatural death of the actor Sushant Singh
Rajput on 14.6.2020, at his Bandra residence at Mumbai. The deceased resided
within Bandra Police Station jurisdiction and there itself, the unnatural death
under section 174 of CrPC was reported.
2. The
petitioner is a friend of the deceased, and
she too is in the acting field since last many years. As regards the
allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, the petitioner claims that she
has been falsely implicated in the Patna FIR, filed by Krishan Kishor Singh
(respondent no. 2) – the father of the deceased actor. The petitioner and the
deceased were in a live- in
relationship but on 8.6.2020, a few days prior to the death of the actor, she
had shifted to her own residence at Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the
Mumbai Police is competent to undertake the investigation, even for the FIR
lodged at Patna.
3.
Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh,
learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar), Mr. Vikas
Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2
(Complainant), Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 (State of Maharashtra) and Mr. Tushar
Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.
4 (Union of India)
4. The
petitioner contends 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. However,
despite want of jurisdiction, the
Complaint was registered at Patna only because of political pressure brought
upon the Bihar Police authorities. Mr Shyam Divan, the learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner argues that the courts in Bihar do not exercise lawful jurisdiction in
the subject matter of the
Complaint and since the acts
alleged in the
Complaint are relatable to Mumbai jurisdiction, the mere factum of Complainant
being a resident of Patna, does not confer jurisdiction on the Bihar police to conduct the
investigation. Adverting to the subsequent transfer of the investigation to the CBI, Mr. Divan argues 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 FIR according to the
petitioner is contradictory and the Complaint fails to disclose how the alleged
actions of the petitioner, led to the suicidal death of the actor. The
petitioner projects that she has fully co-operated with the Mumbai Police in
their inquiry but will have no objection if the investigation is conducted by
the CBI. Mr. Shyam Divan the
learned Senior Counsel submits that justice needs to be done in this case and
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can be invoked by the Court.
5. Representing the State of Bihar, Mr. Maninder Singh, 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. Since allegations of
criminal breach of trust, Cheating and defalcation of money from
the account of the deceased are alleged, the consequences of the offence are
projected to be within the
jurisdiction of the State of Bihar. 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.
Referring to the non-cooperation and obstruction of the
Maharashtra authorities to the SIT of Bihar Police which reached Mumbai on
27.07.2020 and the quarantined
detention of the Superintendent of Police, Patna who had reached Mumbai on 02.08.2020, senior
counsel argues that the
Mumbai Police was trying to suppress the real
facts and were
not conducting a fair and professional inquiry. Since no investigation
relatable to the allegations in the complaint was being conducted and FIR was
not registered by the Mumbai
Police, the action of the Bihar Police in
registering the Complaint, is contended to be legally justified. 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.
6. Projecting the agony of the
deceased’s father, Mr.
Vikas Singh,
the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Complainant has lost his only son
under suspicious circumstances and
was naturally interested in a fair investigation to unravel the truth. 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. When
misappropriation and criminal breach of trust is alleged in respect of the
assets of the deceased actor and the concerned property relatable
to the alleged offence, will have to be accounted eventually to the Complainant
(as a Class I legal heir of the
deceased), the action of the Patna Police is contended to be within
jurisdiction, under Section 179
read with Section 181(4) of the CrPC which speaks of consequences ensuing at
another place, as a result of the alleged crime.
7. Representing
the State of Maharashtra, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel submits that following the unnatural
death of Sushant Singh Rajput on 14.06.2020 at his Bandra residence, the Mumbai
Police registered an Accidental Death Report(ADR) and
commenced inquiry under Section
174 of the CrPC to
ascertain the
cause of death and also to determine whether the death was the result of some
criminal act committed by some other persons. 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. According to Dr. Singhvi, there can be no outer time limit
for conclusion of Section 174 or Section 175 CrPC proceedings. The State of
Maharashtra Counsel argues that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence
was committed and on that
basis, Dr Singhvi submits, that the Bihar police
should have transferred the
Complaint to the Mumbai Police authorities. Alternately, they could have
registered a “zero FIR” and then should have transferred the case for
investigation to Mumbai police. Pointing towards potential misuse, Dr. Singhvi
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. The Senior Counsel
refers to media reports to project that the Bihar Police were hesitant to
register the Complaint of Respondent No 2 but they were prevailed upon by
political pressure. The Maharashtra counsel submits that the father and other
family members of the deceased in their statements to the Mumbai Police, never
mentioned about the allegations in the Complaint
and those are projected to be afterthoughts and improvements. Under the
constitutional scheme, the States have exclusive power to investigate a crime and the Senior Counsel accordingly
argues that crime investigation cannot be routinely transferred to the Central
Agency. Referring to the reasons (a) sensitivity
and (b) Inter-state ramifications,
given by the Bihar Police for entrusting the investigation to the CBI, Dr.
Singhvi argues that the reasons are neither germane nor bona fide. He submits
that ordinarily, the local police should conduct investigation into any
reported crime and entrustment
of the
investigation to the CBI must be an exception to meet extraordinary exigencies,
but here consent was given by Bihar
government, for political exigencies.
8. 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. He 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.
9.
Under the federal design envisaged by the
Constitution, Police is a state subject under List II of Seventh Schedule of
the Constitution. Therefore, investigation of a crime should normally be undertaken
by the concerned state’s
police, where the case is
registered.
There can be situations where a particular
crime by virtue of its nature and ramification, is legally capable of being
investigated by police from different states or even by other agencies. The
entrustment of investigation to the CBI is permitted either with
consent of the
concerned state or on orders of the constitutional court.
However, investigation of a crime by multiple authorities transgressing into
the others domain, is avoidable.
10. In the
instant case, the petitioner repose confidence on Mumbai police. The records of
the case produced before this Court, does not prima facie suggest any wrong
doing by the Mumbai Police. However,
their obstruction to the Bihar police team at Mumbai could have
been avoided since
it gave rise to suspicion on the bonafide of their
inquiry. The Police at Mumbai were
conducting only a limited inquiry into the cause of unnatural death, under
Section 174 CrPC and therefore, it cannot be said with certainty at this stage
that they will not undertake an investigation
on the other aspects
of the unnatural death, by
registering a FIR.
11.
Uncertain about the future contingency at Mumbai, the
father of the deceased has filed the Complaint at Patna, levelling serious
allegations against the petitioner following which, the FIR is registered and
the Bihar Police has started their investigation. The case is now taken over
by the CBI at the request of the
Bihar government. The petitioner has no objection for investigation by the CBI,
but is sceptical about the bonafide of the
steps taken by the Bihar
government and the Patna police.
12. On the other hand, the projection from the side of
the Complainant and the Bihar government is that the Mumbai Police even during
the limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC, are attempting to shield the real
culprits under political pressure. This is however, stoutly refuted
by the State
of Maharashtra whose
stand is that the Bihar police has no jurisdiction to investigate the
crime where, the incident and criminal
acts if any, have occurred within the State of Maharashtra.
13.
Transfer of investigation to the CBI cannot be a
routine occurrence but should be in exceptional circumstances. 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”, as was
recently reiterated for the Bench by Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online SC
462. It is also
the consistent view of the Court that it is not for the accused to choose the investigating
agency. In the instant case, political interference against both states is
alleged which has the potential of
discrediting the investigation. The legal process must therefore be focused
upon revelation of the correct facts through credible and legally acceptable
investigation. It must be determined whether the unnatural death was the result
of some criminal acts. In order to lend credibility to the investigation and
its conclusion, it would be desirable in my view, to specify the authority, which
should conduct the investigation in this matter.
14.
At this stage, having regard to the respective stand
of the parties, following core issues arise for consideration in this case:
(a)
Whether this Court has power to transfer investigation
(not case or appeal) under Section 406 of the
CrPC;
(b)
Whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC
conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the unnatural death, can be
termed as an investigation;
(c) 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
(d)
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.
TRANSFER
POWER UNDER SECTION 406 CRPC
15. 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 investigatory 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.”
16.
The contrary references cited by the Petitioner where
transfer of investigation was allowed, do not
in any manner, refer to a determination on the question of competence to
transfer investigation under Section
406. In the cited
cases, relief was
granted without any discussion of the law, ignoring the long standing ratio laid down in Ram
Chander Singh Sagar (Supra).
17.
Having considered the contour of the power under
section 406 CrPC, it must be concluded that only cases and appeals (not
investigation) can be transferred. The ratio in Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. (Supra) in my view, is clearly
applicable in the present matter.
SCOPE
OF SECTION 174 CRPC PROCEEDING
18.
The proceeding under Section 174 CrPC is limited to
the inquiry carried out by the police to find out the apparent cause of
unnatural death. These are not in the nature
of investigation, undertaken after filing of
FIR under Section 154 CrPC. In the instant case, in Mumbai, no FIR has been registered as yet. The Mumbai Police
has neither considered the matter under Section
175 (2) CrPC,
suspecting commission of a cognizable offence nor proceeded for registration of
FIR under Section 154 or referred the matter under Section 157 CrPC, to the
nearest magistrate having jurisdiction.
19.
On the above aspect, the ratio in Manoj K Sharma vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1 will bear
scrutiny. This was a case of suicide by hanging and Justice M B Lokur, speaking
for the Bench held as follows:-
“19. The proceedings
under Section 174 have a very limited scope. The object of the proceedings is
merely to ascertain whether a
person has died under suspicious circumstances
or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent cause of the
death. The question regarding the
details as to how the
deceased was
assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code. Neither in practice nor
in law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the inquest
report. It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details of the overt
acts in the inquest report. The procedure under Section 174 is for the purpose
of discovering the cause of death, and the evidence taken was very short……
20. …… Sections 174 and 175 of the Code
afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of “inquiries” in cases of accidental
or suspicious deaths and are entirely distinct from the “investigation” under
Section 157 of the Code…..
**** **** **** **** ****
22. In view of the
above, we are of the opinion that the investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is
distinct from the investigation as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code relating to commission of a
cognizable offence…..”
20.
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.
21.
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.
JURISDICTION
OF PATNA POLICE TO REGISTER COMPLAINT
22.
The Respondent no 2 in his Complaint alleged
commission of a cognizable offence and therefore, it was incumbent for the
police to register the FIR and commence the investigation. According to the
Complainant, his attempt from Patna to talk to his son
on telephone was
thwarted by the accused persons and the possibility of saving the life of his
son through father son engagement, was missed out. In consequence, the Complainant lost his only son who at the
appropriate time, as the learned counsel has vividly submitted, was expected to
light the funeral pyre of the father.
23.
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:-
“120.1. 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.
120.2. 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.”
24.
The interpretation of Sections 177 and 178 of the CrPC
would be relevant on the issue. In Satvinder Kaur Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)
(1999) 8 SCC 728 for the Division Bench, Justice M B Shah wrote as under:-
“12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would make
it clear that Section 177 provides for “ordinary” place of enquiry or trial.
Section 178, inter alia, provides
for place of enquiry or trial when
it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed or where the offence
was committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where it
consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be enquired
into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to
investigate the crime.”
25.
Likewise, Justice Arijit Pasayat, in Y Abraham Ajith vs. Inspector of Police,
Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC
100, writing for the Division Bench pronounced as follows:-
“12. The crucial question is whether any part of the cause of action
arose within the jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms of Section 177
of the Code, it is the place where the offence was committed. In essence it is the cause of action for initiation
of the proceedings against the accused.
13. While in civil cases, normally the expression “cause of action” is
used, in criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction where the
offence is committed. These variations in etymological expression do not really
make the position different. The expression
“cause of action”
is, therefore, not a stranger to criminal cases.
14. It is settled law that cause of action consists of a bundle
of facts, which
give cause to enforce the
legal inquiry for redress in a court of law. In other words, it is a bundle of
facts, which taken with the law applicable to them, gives the allegedly
affected party a right to claim relief against the opponent. It must include some act done by the
latter since in the absence of such an act no cause of action
would possibly accrue or would arise.”
26.
When allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust and
Misappropriation is made,
on the jurisdictional aspect, this Court in Asit
Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad Ojha (2007) 5 SCC 786, in the judgment
written by Justice S B Sinha, observed as under:-
“21. Section 181 provides for place of trial in case of certain
offences. Sub-section (4) of Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973 as there
existed conflict in the decisions of
various High Courts as regards commission of offence of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of
trust and with that end in view, it was provided that such an offence may be
inquired into or tried by the court within whose jurisdiction the accused was
bound by law or by contract to render
accounts or return
the entrusted property, but
failed to discharge that obligation.
22. The provisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that even
if a part of cause of action has arisen, the police station concerned situate
within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance under
Section 190(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the jurisdiction to
make investigation.”
27. In the
later judgment of Naresh Kavarchand
Khatri Vs. State of Gujarat (2008)8 SCC 300, this Court reiterated the
ratio in Satvinder Kaur(supra) and Asit
Bhattacharjee (Supra).
28.
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 beyond its territorial jurisdiction.”
29.
Moreover, the allegation relating to criminal 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. This aspect was dealt succinctly by Justice J S Khehar,
as a member of the Division Bench in Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea and Others Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 132 and it was held as under:-
“38 ******
181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.—(1)-(3)* * *
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of
criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose
local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which
is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be
returned or accounted for, by the accused person.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision leaves
no room for any doubt, that in offences of
the nature as are subject-matter of consideration in the present controversy,
the court within whose local jurisdiction,
the whole or a part of the consideration
“… were required to be returned or accounted for.…” would
have jurisdiction in the matter.”
30.
Having regard to the law enunciated by this Court as
noted above, it must be held that the Patna police committed no illegality in
registering the Complaint. Looking at the nature of the allegations in the
Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and breach of trust, the
exercise of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police appears to be in order. At the
stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai
police. 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.
OPTIONS
BEFORE MUMBAI POLICE
31. The Patna
police although found to be competent to
investigate the allegation in the Complaint, the FIR suggests that most of the
transactions/incidents alleged in the Complaint occurred within the territorial
jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra. The
Mumbai Police was inquiring into the unnatural
death of the complainant’s son under section
174 of the CrPC. So far, their
inquiry has not resulted in any FIR suggesting commencement of
investigation on the criminal aspects, if any. However, the incidents referred
to in the Complaint does indicate that the Mumbai police also possess the
jurisdiction to undertake investigation on those circumstances. Therefore, in the event
of a case being registered also at Mumbai, the consent for the investigation by the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act can
be competently given by Maharashtra Government.
INVESTIGATION
ENTRUSTMENT TO CBI
32.
While the CBI cannot conduct any investigation without
the consent of the concerned state as mandated
under section 6, the powers of the Constitutional Courts are not fettered by
the statutory restriction of the DSPE
Act. For this
proposition, one can usefully
refer to State of West Bengal Vs. Sampat
Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 where Justice Ranganath Mishra in his judgment for the 3 judges Bench, held that:-
“13. ……….It is certainly not for this Court at the present stage to examine and come to a conclusion as to whether this
was a case of suicide
or murder. If as a result
of investigation, evidence
is
gathered and a trial takes
place the Sessions Judge will decide that controversy and it may be that in
due course such controversy may
be canvassed before this Court in some form or the
other. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate at this stage to enter
into such a question.…………In our considered
opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when the Court gives a direction
to the CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did
not dispute this position ”
33.
Similarly, the Constitution Bench in the judgment
authored by Justice D K Jain in State of
W B Vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3 SCC 571 pronounced as follows:-
“68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the
constitutional scheme, we conclude as follows:
(v)
Restriction on Parliament by
the Constitution and restriction on the executive by Parliament under an
enactment, do not amount to restriction on the power of the Judiciary under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule on the one
hand and Entry 2-A and Entry 80 of
List I on the other, an investigation by another agency is permissible subject
to grant of consent by the State concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an
exceptional situation, the Court
would be precluded from exercising the same power which the Union could
exercise in terms of the provisions of the statute. In our opinion, exercise of such power
by the constitutional courts
would not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a
situation the Court fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its
constitutional duty.
(vii)
When the Special Police Act
itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up
investigation in relation to the crime which
was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State police,
the Court can also exercise its constitutional
power of judicial review and direct CBI to take up the investigation
within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted
by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any
statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the
restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the
Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the constitutional
courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial
review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount
to infringement of either
the doctrine of separation of power or the
federal structure.”
34.
As noted earlier, the FIR at Patna was subsequently
transferred to the CBI with consent of the Bihar government during pendency of
this Transfer Petition. However, in future,
if commission of cognizable offence under section 175(2) CrPC is
determined, the possibility of parallel investigation by the Mumbai Police
cannot be ruled out. Section 6 of the DSPE
Act, 1946 read with Section 5 prescribe the requirement of consent from
the State government, before entrustment of
investigation to the CBI. 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. A decision by this Court on
the point would confer legitimacy to the investigation.
DIRECTION
ON INVESTIGATION
35.
The conflict between the two State governments on, who amongst the two is competent to
investigate the case, is apparent here. In K.V.
Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai & Ors. (2013)
12 SCC 480,
the 3 judges Bench in the judgment
authored by Justice Dr B S Chauhan held that transfer of investigation
must be in rare and exceptional cases in
order to do complete justice
between the parties
and
to instil
straight confidence in the public mind.
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.
36. 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.
37. In Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2008) 8 SCC
781, Justice L.S.
Panta
in his judgment,
referred to the inherent power conferred on this Court and stated the
following:-
“45. Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete
justice in any “cause” or “matter” pending before it. The expression “cause” or
“matter” would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover
almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal.
………………………..This Court's power under Article 142(1) to do “complete justice” is
entirely of different level and of a different quality.
What would be the
need of “complete justice” in a cause
or matter would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power the Court
would take into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute.
Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a
limitation on the constitutional power of this Court. Once this Court has
seisin of a cause or matter before it, it has power to issue any order or
direction to do “complete justice” in the matter.”
38.
The above ratio makes it amply clear that 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.
39.
As noted earlier, as because both
states are making acrimonious allegations of
political interference against each other,
the legitimacy of the investigation has come under a cloud.
Accusing fingers are being pointed and people have taken the liberty to put out
their own conjectures and theories. Such comments, responsible or otherwise,
have led to speculative public discourse which have hogged media limelight.
These developments unfortunately have the propensity to delay and misdirect the
investigation. In such situation, there is reasonable apprehension of truth
being a casualty and justice becoming a victim.
40.
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.
41. In such
backdrop, to ensure public confidence in the investigation and to do complete
justice in the matter, this Court considers it appropriate to invoke the powers
conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution.
As a Court exercising lawful
jurisdiction for the assigned roster, no impediment is seen for exercise
of plenary power in the present matter. Therefore while according approval for
the ongoing CBI investigation, if
any other case is registered on the
death of the actor
Sushant Singh Rajput
and the
surrounding
circumstances of his unnatural death, the CBI is directed to investigate the
new case as well. It is ordered accordingly.
42.
Before parting, it is made clear that the conclusion
and observations in this order is only for disposal of this petition and should
have no bearing for any other purpose.
43.
The Transfer Petition is disposed of with the above
order.
NEW
DELHI AUGUST 19, 2020
…………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH
ROY]
