2020 Supreme(SC) 490

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HRISHIKESH ROY, J.
Rhea Chakraborty – Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. – Respondent
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No.225 of 2020
Decided On : 19-08-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspected murder case – While CBI cannot conduct any investigation without consent of concerned Sate as mandated under Section 6, powers of Constitutional Courts are not fettered by statutory restriction of DSPE Act.
(2) It is not for accused to choose investigating agency.
(3) A police officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on territorial ground and issue can be decided after conclusion of investigation.
(4) Proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited to inquiry carried out by police to find out apparent cause of unnatural death – These are not in nature of investigation, undertaken after filing of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 406 read with Order XXXIX of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B – Transfer Petition – Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspected murder case – Investigation of a crime should normally be undertaken by concerned state’s police, where 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 – Entrustment of investigation to CBI is permitted either with consent of concerned State or on orders of constitutional court – However, investigation of a crime by multiple authorities transgressing into others domain, is avoidable – In instant case, petitioner repose confidence on Mumbai police – Records of case produced before this Court, does not prima facie suggest any wrong doing by Mumbai Police – However, their obstruction to Bihar police team at Mumbai could have been avoided since it gave rise to suspicion on bonafide of their inquiry – Police at Mumbai were conducting only a limited inquiry into cause of unnatural death, under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and it cannot be said with certainty at this stage that they will not undertake investigation on other aspects of unnatural death, by registering a FIR – Uncertain about future contingency at Mumbai, father of deceased has filed Complaint at Patna, levelling serious allegations against petitioner following which, FIR is registered and Bihar Police has started their investigation – Case is now taken over by CBI at request of Bihar government – Petitioner has no objection for investigation by CBI but is sceptical about bonafide of steps taken by Bihar government and Patna police – Uncertain about future contingency at Mumbai, father of deceased has filed Complaint at Patna, levelling serious allegations against petitioner following which, FIR is registered and Bihar Police has started their investigation – Case is now taken over by CBI at request of Bihar government – Petitioner has no objection for investigation by CBI, but is sceptical about bonafide of steps taken by Bihar government and Patna police. (Paras 9, 10 and 11)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Crime investigation – Transfer of investigation to CBI cannot be a routine occurrence but should be in exceptional circumstances – One factor which is considered relevant for induction of Central Agency is to retain public confidence in impartial working of State agencies – It is not for accused to choose investigating agency – In instant case, political interference against both states is alleged which has potential of discrediting investigation – Legal process must be focused upon revelation of correct facts through credible and legally acceptable investigation – It must be determined whether unnatural death was result of some criminal acts – In order to lend credibility to investigation and its conclusion, it would be desirable to specify authority which should conduct investigation in this matter – Only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred. (Paras 13 and 17)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 174 and 406 read with Order XXXIX of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B – Transfer Petition – Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspected murder case – Proceeding under Section 174 Cr.P.C. is limited to inquiry carried out by police to find out apparent cause of unnatural death – These are not in nature of investigation, undertaken after filing of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. – In instant case, in Mumbai, no FIR has been registered as yet – Mumbai Police has neither considered matter under Section 175 (2) Cr.P.C., suspecting commission of a cognizable offence nor proceeded for registration of FIR under Section 154 or referred the matter under Section 157 Cr.P.C., to nearest magistrate having jurisdiction – In present case, Mumbai Police has attempted to stretch purview of Section 174 without drawing up any FIR and therefore, no investigation pursuant to commission of a cognizable offence is being carried out by Mumbai police – They are yet to register a FIR – Nor they have made a suitable determination, in terms of Section 175(2) Cr.P.C. – It is pre-emptive and premature to hold that a parallel investigation is being carried out by Mumbai Police – In case of a future possibility of cognizance being taken by two courts in different jurisdictions, issue could be resolved under Section 186 Cr.P.C. and other applicable laws – No opinion is expressed on a future contingency and issue is left open to be decided, if needed, in accordance with law – Enquiry conducted under Section 174 Cr.P.C. by Mumbai police is limited for a definite purpose but is not an investigation of a crime under Section 157 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 18, 20 and 21)

(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 177, 178 and 406 read with Order XXXIX of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B – Transfer Petition – Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspected murder case – A police officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on territorial ground and issue can be decided after conclusion of investigation – Allegation relating to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where Complainant resides), could prima facie indicate lawful jurisdiction of Patna police – Patna police committed no illegality in registering Complaint – Looking at nature of allegations in Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and breach of trust, exercise of jurisdiction by Bihar Police appears to be in order – At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer FIR to Mumbai police – For same reason, Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to CBI and as such ongoing investigation by CBI held to be lawful – However, most of transactions/incidents alleged in Complaint occurred within territorial jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra – In the event of a case being registered also at Mumbai, consent for investigation by CBI under Section 6 of DSPE Act can be competently given by Maharashtra Government. (Paras 28, 29, 30 and 31)

(E) Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Sections 5 and 6 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173 – Constitution of India – Article 142 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B – CBI investigation – Actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s suspected murder case – While CBI cannot conduct any investigation without consent of concerned Sate as mandated under Section 6, powers of Constitutional Courts are not fettered by statutory restriction of DSPE Act – FIR at Patna was subsequently transferred to CBI with consent of Bihar government during pendency of this Transfer Petition – However, in future, if commission of cognizable offence under Section 175(2) Cr.P.C. is determined, possibility of parallel investigation by Mumbai Police cannot be ruled out – As CBI has already registered a case and commenced investigation at instance of Bihar government, uncertainty and confusion must be avoided in event of Mumbai Police also deciding to simultaneously investigate cognizable offence, based on their finding in inquiry proceeding – Conflict between two State governments on, who amongst two is competent to investigate case, is apparent here – Credibility of investigation and investigating authority, must be protected – Ongoing investigation by CBI held to be lawful – In the event a new case is registered at Mumbai on same issue, in fitness of things, it would be appropriate if latter case too gets investigated by same agency, on strength of this Court’s order – Such enabling order will make it possible for CBI to investigate new case, avoiding rigors of Section 6 of DSPE Act, requiring consent from State of Maharashtra – Supreme Court in a deserving case, can invoke Article 142 powers to render justice – Peculiar circumstances in this case require that complete justice is done in this matter – As because both states are making acrimonious allegations of political interference against each other, legitimacy of investigation has come under a cloud – In such situation, there is reasonable apprehension of truth being a casualty and justice becoming a victim – Actor Sushant Singh Rajput was a talented actor in Mumbai film world and died well before his full potential could be realised – His family, friends and admirers are keenly waiting outcome of investigation so that all speculations floating around can be put to rest – Fair, competent and impartial investigation is need of hour – Expected outcome then would be, a measure of justice for Complainant who lost his only son – For petitioner too, it will be desired justice as she herself called for a CBI investigation – Dissemination of real facts through unbiased investigation would certainly result in justice for innocents who might be target of vilification campaign – This Court considers it appropriate to invoke powers conferred by Article 142 of Constitution – As a Court exercising lawful jurisdiction for assigned roster, no impediment is seen for exercise of plenary power in present matter – While according approval for ongoing CBI investigation, if any other case is registered on death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput and surrounding circumstances of his unnatural death, CBI directed to investigate new case as well. (Paras 32, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40 and 41)

Facts of the case:

Present Transfer Petition is filed under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Order XXXIX of 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 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. The matter relates to 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 Cr.P.C. was reported.

Findings of Court:

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.

Result : Transfer Petition disposed of with order.