SUMMARY OF CASE RHEA CHAKRABORTY V. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Case
Title: Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Others
Case
No.:
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020 (Reportable)
Corum:
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
Petitioner:
Rhea Chakraborty
Respondents:
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SHO RAJEEV
NAGAR P.S.
2. KRISHNA KISHORE SINGH
3. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SHO
BANDRA P.S.
4. UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY
Advocates
Appeared for Parties:
Mr.
Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner;
Mr.
Maninder Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.1
Mr.
Vikas Singh, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.2
Dr.
A.M. Singhvi and Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.3
Mr.
Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, learned Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.4
In
which matter this Transfer Petition was filed:
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 the Criminal Procedure, 1973 was reported.
Prayer
made in the Petition:
Transfer
Petition is filed under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read
with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 with prayer for transfer of
the FIR registered at the Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and all consequential
proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
III, Patna Sadar to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra Mumbai.
Core
Issues Consider by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
(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.
JUDGEMENT
Transfer
Power of The Supreme Court 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…
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.
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…
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…
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…”
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.
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.”
Analysis:
The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the all above issues and decided the
matter appropriately. The best part is the judgement and the worst part is some
portions of the averments made during the course of argument. It is clarified
here that the said averments are made not due to ignorance of law or subject
but the same are politically motivated.
The
Apex Court while considering the transfer under section 406 CrPC, clearly
determined the scope of section 406 CrPC. Investigation is an important part in
any criminal case that is said to backbone of the case because on the basis of
proper investigation, a case can be established or demolished. For justice, a
fair and impartial investigation is essential. However, if the FIR would have
been registered by the Maharashtra Police, the case might have been different.
While
considering scope of section 174 CrPC, the Apex Court has provide a very clear
distinction between inquiry and investigation.
While
considering the issue of registration of FIR by the Bihar Police, the Court has
rightly observed that it is matter of investigation. Investigation of a case
provide clear picture and fact of the case and only after investigation in the
present case, jurisdiction can be determined.
Since
the matter of investigation by Bihar Police and inquiry by Maharashtra Police
are entirely different, it can be carried out separately.
While
considering the transfer of case to CBI, the Hon’ble Court has travelled through
the literal interpretation of law. Since, it is legally correct but it won’t
seems to be practical because of the reason that now CBI is investigating for
the alleged offence of criminal breach of trust, Cheating and defalcation of money
from the account of the deceased Sushant Singh Rajput. Entrusting CBI for
investigation of such type of offences are seems to be appropriate because
there is provision of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 which talks
about right to equality. We all are aware that a huge number of rape cases are
still not reported and we are engaging CBI for investigation of such type of
offences. By entrusting CBI in this case, Bihar Government has raised a
question on the competence of the Bihar Police and unity and integrity to our
great India due to political motive as it was alleged that there are no
cooperation between Bihar Police and Maharashtra Police. By approving the said
entrustment, the Apex Court has made a questionable order.
With
regard to direction to CBI for investigation in future FIR, as and when registered
by the Maharashtra Police, the Apex Court has acted well within the law but it
might have been more appropriate and in the interest of natural justice that
the CBI would have been entrusted to investigate the entire matter relating to
Sushant Singh Rajput because justice must prevail and truth shall come forward.
Conclusion:
In the said judgement, consideration of law and fact is very well. The judgment is balanced and technically good but at some portion, as described above, due to legality or otherwise the course of natural justice left behind. Because in above judgement, the practical aspect to find out real cause of death of Sushant Singh Rajput has not been dealt with.
