Transfer
Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020
Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner Versus State of
Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT : Hrishikesh Roy
Respondent No.
1 (State of Bihar)
Counsel: Mr. Maninder Singh
Respondent No.
2 (petitioner) Rhea Chakraborty Counsel: Mr. Shyam Divan,Mr. Vikas Singh
Respondent No.3
(State of Maharashtra)
Counsel : Dr. A.M. Singhvi and Mr. R. Basant
Respondent No.4
(CBI and Union of India) Counsel
: Mr. Tushar Mehta
RESPONDENT 02. 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.
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”).
RESPONDENT 01. 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.
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.
The Mumbai
Police registered an Accidental Death Report(ADR) and commenced inquiry under
Section 174 of the CrPC to Page 8 of 35 ascertain the cause of death and also
to determine whether the death was the result of some criminal act committed by
some other persons.
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.
RESPONDENT 03. 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.
Tthe 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,
"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."
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.
- TRANSFER POWER UNDER
SECTION 406 CRPC
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.
- JURISDICTION OF PATNA
POLICE TO REGISTER COMPLAINT
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is 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 Page 35 of 35 surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death, the CBI
is directed to investigate the new case as well. It is ordered accordingly.
Copy Of Supreme
Court Original Judgement : Click Here
Here is The
Summary of Transfer Petition of Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner Versus State of
Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s).
Main Highlights
of The Cases were Highlighted by Dark Words.
For any Query Use Contact Page.
Every Effort is made
to Provide Every Information Correct and Reliable .If Any Discrepancy will be
found in Blog or Information ,Neither me Nor my Blog is Responsible For That.
Comments
Post a Comment