The Supreme Court of India (SC) while exercising its original jurisdiction in the matter of Rhea Chakraborty v. the State of Bihar and Others bearing Petition Number 225 of 2020 passed its decision on August 19, 2020, ordering Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation in actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death case. The Highlights of the above-mentioned petition and judgment passed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Hrishikesh Roy is as follows:
CLICK HERE TO READ THE JUDGEMENT
Facts of the Petition
- On June 14, 2020 actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) was found dead in his apartment in Bandra, Mumbai. Subsequently, on July 25, 2020, the late actor’s father Mr. K.K. Singh (Respondent Number 2) filed an FIR under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against actress Rhea Chakraborty (Petitioner) in his hometown Patna, Bihar. The Petitioner thus approached the Hon’ble Court under Section 406 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking transfer of the said FIR bearing Number 241 of 2020 from Patna to Mumbai where the deceased resided and consequently succumbed.
- The Petitioner and SSR were living in a live-in relationship, when on 06.08.2020 the Petitioner shifted to her own residence in Mumbai. The Petitioner stated that she had been dishonestly implicated in the FIR filed by Respondent Number 2 i.e. SSR’s father. She claimed that even though FIR is filed in Patna, Mumbai Police is competent to undertake the investigation.
- The Petitioner contended that the State of Maharashtra enjoys exclusive jurisdiction in this incident and the complaint when and where received by Patna police should have been immediately transferred to Mumbai police for conducting further probe.
Arguments Put Forth:
- Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Shyam Divan argued that since the late actor resided and died in Mumbai, the State of Maharashtra exercises exclusive jurisdiction in the said incident and the mere fact of the Complainant (SSR’s father) being a resident of Patna does not confer any jurisdictional power upon Patna Police to investigate in the matter and thus Bihar government’s appeal to hand over the case to CBI does not stand legal. The Petitioner’s counsel further submitted that his client has fully cooperated with the Mumbai police and does not oppose CBI investigation and thus seeks justice to be delivered by the Hon’ble Court by exercising its powers invoked under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
Article 142 provides for SC’s power to pass such decrees or make such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice and are applicable throughout the territory of India.
- Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Maninder Singh appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar submitted that it was mandatory for Patna police to register the FIR and move ahead with the investigation as the complaint consisted of a cognizable offense. Learned counsel further highlighted the unprofessional behavior of Mumbai police by suppressing real facts and hiding the culprits involved in SSR’s death under political pressure. Incidents of non-cooperation of Maharashtra state authorities with Special Investigation Team (SIT) Bihar and quarantined detention of the Superintendent of Police, Patna were put forward by the counsel. Due to such inappropriate attitude of Mumbai police, the registration of FIR by Patna police and investigation procedure carried out is legally justified.
- Mr. Vikas Singh representing the deceased’s father submitted that the investigations by Patna police to unravel the truth of the loss of his party’s only son under mysterious circumstances is legally justified and appropriate under Section 179 read with Section 181(4) of CrPC as Mr. K.K. Singh is the legal heir of late actor’s assets and concerned property related to the alleged offense of criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
Section 179 of CrPC speaks of consequences ensuing at another place, as a result of the alleged crime.
Section 181(4) of CrPC provides that any offence pertaining to criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by 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.
- Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the State of Maharashtra submitted that pursuant to the death of SSR, Mumbai police have registered an Accidental Death Report (ADR) and commenced inquiry under Section 174 of CrPC. In lieu of the same, statements of 56 persons have been recorded and evidence relating to post mortem report, forensic report, etc. have also been collected. Learned counsel suggested that Bihar Police could have registered zero FIR (FIR can be filed in any police station but then transferred to appropriate one exercising jurisdiction in the matter) instead of dealing with the case itself. Mr. Singhvi contended that the matter should be passed to the local police since the CBI is meant for handling extraordinary exigencies.
Section 174 of CrPC deals with the power of police station to hold an enquiry on receiving information of suicide, one person killed by another, or person died under reasonable suspicious circumstances.
- Learned Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta contended that Maharashtra police are conducting only a limited inquiry and have not yet registered FIR. Mr. Mehta stated that CBI has registered a case and has thereafter started its investigation post the request of the Bihar Government to conduct CBI inquiry in the said matter. He further submitted that to avoid partiality of any kind both the States should be kept out of the scene and command of fair inquiry should be handed over to the centre.
- In Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India 2020 SCC Online SC 462 the Bench by Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud reiterated the induction of Central agency in order to retain public confidence in the impartial working of States.
Hon’ble Court’s Observations
- The decision of this Hon’ble Court in Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 2 SCC 35 is clearly applicable in the present matter wherein it was held that only appeals and cases can be transferred under Section 406 of CrPC and not investigations.
- The Hon’ble SC declared that no FIR has yet been registered by the Mumbai police and the inquiry being undertaken by them under Section 174 CrPC is limited in nature and does not amount to an investigation of a crime.
- It is compulsory on part of the police to register FIR on receiving information on any cognizable offense as held in Lalita Kumari Vs.Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 and so no illegality is committed on behalf of Patna police in registering the complaint. The investigations being conducted by Patna police are lawful and well within the jurisdiction and there seems absolutely no requirement of transferring the FIR to Mumbai police. Commenting upon the ongoing investigations by CBI in the said matter, the Hon’ble Court acknowledged it legitimate and held the Bihar government competent of giving consent to CBI.
- The Hon’ble Court thus stated that to avoid further conflict between the two states, CBI should be given exclusive authority in dealing with the present matter. Although, Maharashtra authorities possess the right to give consent to CBI to investigate if any new case is filed on the same lines with Mumbai police.
The Hon’ble Court exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution disposed of the transfer petition and gave approval to CBI investigation in the present case and all other cases which can likely be filed in the future relating to the suspicious death of the late actor. The said order has been passed with a view to providing justice to the father who lost his only son and the Petitioner who herself called for a CBI investigation.
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.
Supreme Court
