The case of fateful demise of young celebrity actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s generated a lot speculation in the last few days among the public and media. Emotions were high demanding non-partisan inquiry into his sudden death. Initially, the Mumbai Police started investigating the case in terms of section 174 of CrPC without formal registration of a FIR. Successively, Bihar Police registered a FIR on the basis of complaint of father of deceased Sushant Singh Rajput under various serious sections of IPC, 1860 as against actor Rhea Chakorbarty and Ors. In due course, Mumbai Police and Bihar Police were at loggerheads over the Investigation of the case. Both sides, the accused and victim were fearing no justice, leading to a lawsuit in Supreme Court.
Finally, the Supreme Court on 19.08.2020 gave a judgment in Rhea Chakraborty vs State of Bihar and Ors paving a way for Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case putting an end to all kind of murmur. The case was filed by Rhea Chakraborty under section 406 of CrPC seeking transfer of case registered by Bihar Police to Mumbai Police. Section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with power of Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals from on State to another State, to secure the ends of justice. Additionally, Supreme Court Rules 2013 empowers a Single Judge of Supreme Court to deal with cases of transfers.
Rhea Chakraborty argued that she has been falsely implicated by the Bihar Police, that the incidents alleged have been taken place entirely in the jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra, therefore the jurisdiction lies only with the Mumbai Police and not with Bihar Police. And since the Bihar Police lacked the jurisdiction to register and investigate a case hence transfer of investigation to CBI on Bihar Govt’s consent would not amount to a lawful consent under section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. To explain briefly, section 6 of DSPE Act mandates consent of State Government to enable any exercise of power by member of DSPE in an area of that State Govt. Interestingly, petitioner also made a prayer for an exercise of power under Article 142 of Constitution of India. Article 142 of Constitution of India gives power to Supreme Court to pass any order or direction for doing a complete justice in the matter, which is often termed as one of the most important tools of Supreme Court.
The stand of the Bihar Government was that upon disclosure of a cognizable offence, it is mandatory on the police to register an FIR and investigate the case. Since the allegation of criminal breach of trust, cheating and defalcation of money from account of deceased was alleged, the Bihar Police is well within its jurisdiction to register a case. Also, since no FIR was registered by Mumbai Police, the action of Bihar Police in registration of FIR and consequent consent for entrustment of investigation to CBI satisfies the requirement of Section 6 of DSPE Act. Uniformly, it was urged by the father of Sushant Singh Rajput that 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.
The State of Maharashtra asserted that the Mumbai Police is seized of investigation and already examined around 56 persons and if it discloses commission of cognizable offence, the FIR will be registered and that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction, the offence was committed. That further crime investigation cannot be routinely transferred to the Central Agency. The Union of India being also a party submitted that 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. Hence, the 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, Union prayed that this itself justifies entrustment of the investigation to an independent Central Agency.
Answering these contentions, the Supreme Court framed four important questions of law. Coming to the first question of law ‘whether under section 406 of CrPC a mere ‘investigation’ can be transferred’. Relying on a previous judgment rendered by J. Krishna Iyer of Supreme Court in Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 2 SCC 35, it has been held that only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred under section 406 of CrPC. A mere investigation done by a Police Station cannot be transferred to another part of the Country.
Secondly, whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the unnatural death, can be termed as an ‘investigation’. Supreme Court held that “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. 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. 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.” To base this finding, the Learned Single Judge had relied on a judgment titled Manoj K Sharma vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1.”
Thirdly, “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”. Answering this, it has been held that ‘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. 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. Hence they were not required to transfer the investigation 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’. While answering this query, it has been also held that though 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 indicating 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. Hence, this needs to be determined.
Lastly, “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”. Explaining this, it has been held 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 and Supreme Court can pass appropriate directions by resorting to Article 142. Relying on the judgment rendered in Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 8 SCC 781 on Article 142 of Constitution of India which stated that-
“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……’’
Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy held that the “above ratio makes it amply clear that the Supreme Court in a deserving case, can invoke Article 142 powers to render justice. 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.”.
Hence, it becomes clear from a reading of the judgment that that every query has been methodically answered. It is not a first time that a Single Judge of Supreme Court has exercised powers under Article 142 of Constitution of India. Infact, in Gaurav Jain vs UOI and Ors reported in (1997) 8 SCC 114, the Supreme Court has already held that “a Single Judge of a Supreme Court can invoke Article 142 to issue appropriate orders/ directions to meets the end of justice in a case. However, a point which is being argued post this judgment is that whether sitting in this roster such directions could have been issued, though this point according to me has also been taken care by the Hon’ble Single Judge. While we may continue to argue on various legal issues, the judgment had atleast put a final stamp regarding investigation which seems to be in the interest of both parties for the time being.
Adv. Rahul Bhandari practices at the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and district courts at Delhi.
