NEWS: [Sushant Singh Rajput Case] Why Supreme Court Maintained Jurisdiction of Bihar Police to Lodge FIR?

By Legal Wires 8 Minutes Read

The Supreme Court on Wednesday supported the handover of an FIR, filed at Patna against actress Rhea Chakraborty & others for purportedly inciting the suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that Bihar police had the authority to register FIR about the suicide of late Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput at the grievance of his father and held that relocation of investigation to CBI was legitimate.

A single bench approved the order of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, who held that the Bihar Police executed no illegality in displaying an FIR based on a complaint made by Sushant Singh’s father, which divulged commission of a cognizable crime.

While sticking thus, the Top Court repeated that a police officer could not desist from investigating a matter merely on “territorial grounds,” & this matter can be decided after the conclusion of the inquiry. The bench mentioned to the oft-cited precedent Lalitakumari vs. the State of UP in this respect.

The Top Court cleared this view of the law in Satvinder Kaur v. GNCTD[1]. It was recently stated in Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar v. the State of Gujarat[2], in which it observed that it was not in the jurisdiction of the examining agency to refrain itself from carrying a proper and complete investigation upon merely concluding that the crimes had been committed outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Patna Police had Authority Under Section 181 Cr.P.C-

The Bihar police had recorded FIR under Sec. 341[3], 342[4], 380[5], 406[6], 420[7], 306[8], 506[9] and 120B[10] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,

The Court maintained that the Patna Police had “lawful jurisdiction” to lodge the FIR as the Complaint lodged by the actor’s father included allegations of criminal breach of trust & misuse of money.

The Court elucidated that when allegations relate to the commission of the offenses mentioned above, the same can be asked into by any Court, in footings of Section 181 of Cr.P.C, in whose local jurisdiction the offense was done, or any part of the property which is the topic of the offense was conventional or retained, or was obligatory to be repaid or accounted for, by the suspect. Another way round, the Court held that responsibility is relevant even to the place at which consideration is needed to be returned or accounted for[11]. The Court observed in this regard that the accusation relating to criminal breach of trust & embezzlement of money, which were to be ultimately accounted for in Patna (where the Complainant exists in), could prima facie specify the lawful authority of the Patna police.

In this background, the Court held, looking at the description of the allegations in the Complaint, which also correlate to misappropriation & violation of trust, the practice of jurisdiction by the Bihar Police seems to be in order. At the stage of the investigation, they were not necessary to move the FIR to the Mumbai police. For a similar reason, the Bihar government was proficient in giving consent for allocation of investigation to the CBI & as such, the continuing investigation by the CBI is held to be legal.

No parallel inquiry by Mumbai Police-

The Top Court conveyed agreement with the Respondents that for the period being, the Mumbai Police was overseeing an inquiry into the unusual death of the actor & there was no doubt of 2 cases pending in 2 different states. It was contended that the Mumbai Police was not examining into the allegations of nature asserted in the FIR registered in Bihar.

The Court observed that the proceeding under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C is restricted to the inquiry carried out by the police to discover the apparent reason of unnatural death. These are not like inquiry, commenced after filing of FIR under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C. However, it confessed to the future possibility of Mumbai Police taking cognizance of the case of unusual death & desisted from conveying any view thereof. The Court stated that the Police at Mumbai were leading only an imperfect inquiry into the reason of unnatural death, under Sec. 174 Cr.P.C and consequently, it cannot be said with assurance at this stage that they will not embark on an investigation on the other facets of the unnatural death, by lodging an FIR.

It is pre-emptive & hasty to hold that the Mumbai Police are carrying out a parallel inquiry. In case of a future likelihood of cognizance being taken by two courts in separate jurisdictions, the issue could be solved under Sec. 186 Cr.P.C & added applicable laws. No view is therefore voiced on a future contingency & the issue is left free to be decided, if needed, in harmony with the law.

[1] (1999) 8 SCC 728,
[2] (2010) 1 SCC 1
[3] wrongful restraint
[4] wrongful confinement
[5] theft in dwelling house
[6] criminal breach of trust
[7] cheating
[8] abetment of suicide
[9] criminal intimidation
[10] criminal conspiracy
[11] Stating to Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 132

Legal Wires

Team @LegalWires