Page 1 of 35
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020
Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC”) read with Order XXXIX of the 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 (for short “IPC”) registered at the
Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and all
consequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar,
Page 2 of 35
to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra
Mumbai. The matter relates to the 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 CrPC
was reported.
2. The petitioner is a friend of the deceased, and she
too is in the acting field since last many years. As
regards the allegations against the petitioner in the
FIR, the petitioner claims that she has been falsely
implicated in the Patna FIR, filed by Krishan Kishor
Singh (respondent no. 2) – the father of the deceased
actor. The petitioner and the deceased were in a livein relationship but on 8.6.2020, a few days prior to
the death of the actor, she had shifted to her own
residence at Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the
Mumbai Police is competent to undertake the
investigation, even for the FIR lodged at Patna.
3. Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh,
Page 3 of 35
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar), Mr. Vikas Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2 (Complainant), Dr. A.M. Singhvi and
Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 3 (State of Maharashtra) and
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Union of
India)
4. 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. Mr Shyam Divan, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the
courts in Bihar do not exercise lawful jurisdiction in
the subject matter of the Complaint and since the acts
Page 4 of 35
alleged in the Complaint are relatable to Mumbai
jurisdiction, the mere factum of Complainant being a
resident of Patna, does not confer jurisdiction on the
Bihar police to conduct the investigation. Adverting
to the subsequent transfer of the investigation to the
CBI, Mr. Divan argues that since the 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”). The FIR according to the petitioner is
contradictory and the Complaint fails to disclose how
the alleged actions of the petitioner, led to the
suicidal death of the actor. The petitioner projects
that she has fully co-operated with the Mumbai Police
in their inquiry but will have no objection if the
investigation is conducted by the CBI. Mr. Shyam Divan
the learned Senior Counsel submits that justice needs
to be done in this case and powers under Article 142
of the Constitution can be invoked by the Court.
Page 5 of 35
5. Representing the State of Bihar, Mr. Maninder Singh,
the learned Senior Counsel submits that 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.
Referring to the non-cooperation and obstruction of the
Maharashtra authorities to the SIT of Bihar Police
which reached Mumbai on 27.07.2020 and the quarantined
detention of the Superintendent of Police, Patna who
had reached Mumbai on 02.08.2020, senior counsel argues
that the Mumbai Police was trying to suppress the real
Page 6 of 35
facts and were not conducting a fair and professional
inquiry. Since no investigation relatable to the
allegations in the complaint was being conducted and
FIR was not registered by the Mumbai Police, the action
of the Bihar Police in registering the Complaint, is
contended to be legally justified. On that basis, the
Bihar Government’s consent for entrustment of the
investigation to the CBI is submitted to satisfy the
requirement of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Besides, as
the petitioner herself has called for a CBI
investigation and as the CBI has since registered a
case and commenced their investigation, (on the request
of the State of Bihar), the Senior Counsel submits that
this transfer petition is infructuous.
6. Projecting the agony of the deceased’s father, Mr.
Vikas Singh, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
the Complainant has lost his only son under suspicious
circumstances and was naturally interested in a fair
investigation to unravel the truth. The inquiry by
the Mumbai Police under section 174 of the CrPC is not
an investigation of the complainant’s allegations and
therefore the registration of the case and
Page 7 of 35
investigation into those allegations by the Bihar
Police is contended to be justified. 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. When misappropriation and criminal
breach of trust is alleged in respect of the assets of
the deceased actor and the concerned property relatable
to the alleged offence, will have to be accounted
eventually to the Complainant (as a Class I legal heir
of the deceased), 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.
7. Representing the State of Maharashtra, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
following the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput
on 14.06.2020 at his Bandra residence, 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. In course of the
inquiry, the statements of 56 persons were recorded and
other evidence such as the Post Mortem report, Forensic
report etc have been collected. If the inquiry
discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the
Mumbai police will register a FIR. According to Dr.
Singhvi, there can be no outer time limit for
conclusion of Section 174 or Section 175 CrPC
proceedings. The State of Maharashtra Counsel argues
that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction,
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. Pointing towards
potential misuse, Dr. Singhvi submits that if
registration of Complaint in another state is
permitted, it will enable a person to choose the
Page 9 of 35
investigating authority and will obstruct exercise of
lawful jurisdiction by the local police. This will
impact the country’s federal structure. The Senior
Counsel refers to media reports to project that the
Bihar Police were hesitant to register the Complaint
of Respondent No 2 but they were prevailed upon by
political pressure. The Maharashtra counsel submits
that the father and other family members of the
deceased in their statements to the Mumbai Police,
never mentioned about the allegations in the Complaint
and those are projected to be afterthoughts and
improvements. Under the constitutional scheme, the
States have exclusive power to investigate a crime and
the 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, given
by the Bihar Police for entrusting the investigation
to the CBI, Dr. Singhvi argues that the reasons are
neither germane nor bona fide. He submits that
ordinarily, the local police should conduct
investigation into any reported crime and entrustment
Page 10 of 35
of the investigation to the CBI must be an exception
to meet extraordinary exigencies, but here consent was
given by Bihar government, for political exigencies.
8. Mr Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of
India, appears for the Union of India and the CBI. 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. He therefore contends that the present 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, Mr. Mehta submits
that this itself justifies entrustment of the
investigation to an independent Central Agency. The
learned Solicitor General then points out that by
acceding to the request made by the State of Bihar, the
CBI has registered the FIR and commenced investigation.
Page 11 of 35
Besides the Directorate of Enforcement, a central
agency, is also acting under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. He therefore argues that a fair
and impartial inquiry can be ensured if the police of
either state are kept away from investigating the
alleged crime, relating to the suspicious death of the
film actor. Adverting to the affidavit of the
Maharashtra Police that they have recorded the
statements of 56 persons in the section 174
proceedings, the Solicitor General submits that since
FIR is not yet registered and the Mumbai Police is
discharging limited functions under section 174 of the
CrPC, the investigation of any alleged crime following
registration of FIR is yet to legally commence in
Mumbai and as such, there is no case pending in the
State of Maharashtra which can justify the invocation
of powers under section 406 of the CrPC.
9. 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
Page 12 of 35
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.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner repose
confidence on Mumbai police. The records of the case
produced before this Court, does not prima facie
suggest any wrong doing by the Mumbai Police. However,
their obstruction to the Bihar police team at Mumbai
could have been avoided since it gave rise to suspicion
on the bonafide of their inquiry. The Police at Mumbai
were conducting only a limited inquiry into the cause
of unnatural death, under Section 174 CrPC and
therefore, it cannot be said with certainty at this
stage that they will not undertake an investigation on
the other aspects of the unnatural death, by
registering a FIR.
Page 13 of 35
11. Uncertain about the future contingency at Mumbai,
the father of the deceased has filed the Complaint at
Patna, levelling serious allegations against the
petitioner following which, the FIR is registered and
the Bihar Police has started their investigation. The
case is now taken over by the CBI at the request of the
Bihar government. The petitioner has no objection for
investigation by the CBI, but is sceptical about the
bonafide of the steps taken by the Bihar government and
the Patna police.
12. On the other hand, the projection from the side of
the Complainant and the Bihar government is that the
Mumbai Police even during the limited inquiry under
Section 174 CrPC, are attempting to shield the real
culprits under political pressure. This is however,
stoutly refuted by the State of Maharashtra whose stand
is that the Bihar police has no jurisdiction to
investigate the crime where, the incident and criminal
acts if any, have occurred within the State of
Maharashtra.
Page 14 of 35
13. 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.
In order to lend credibility to the investigation and
its conclusion, it would be desirable in my view, to
specify the authority, which should conduct the
investigation in this matter.
Page 15 of 35
14. At this stage, having regard to the respective
stand of the parties, following core issues arise for
consideration in this case:
(a) Whether this Court has power to transfer
investigation (not case or appeal) under Section 406
of the CrPC;
(b) Whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC
conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the
unnatural death, can be termed as an investigation;
(c) 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; and
(d) 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.
TRANSFER POWER UNDER SECTION 406 CRPC
15. Section 406 CrPC empowers the Supreme Court to
transfer cases and appeals. The scope of exercise of
Page 16 of 35
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. However, transfer of investigation on the
other hand was negated by this Court in the case of Ram
Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1978) 2 SCC 35. Writing the judgment Justice V R
Krishna Iyer, declared that:-
“The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court
with power under Section 406 to transfer a case or
appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate
to one High Court to another High Court or to a
Court subordinate thereto. But, it does not clothe
this Court with the power to transfer
investigations from one police station to another
in the country simply because the first information
or a remand report is for warded to a Court. The
application before us stems from a misconception
about the scope of Section 406. There is as yet no
case pending before any Court as has been made
clear in the counter affidavit of the State of
Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit,
nothing can be done except to dismiss this
petition.
“ 2. If the petitioners are being directed to
appear in a far-off court during investigatory
stage it is for them to move that court for
appropriate orders so that they may not be
tormented by long travel or otherwise teased by
judicial process. If justice is denied there are
other redresses, not under Section 406, though it
Page 17 of 35
is unfortunate that the petitioners have not chosen
to move that court to be absolved from appearance
until necessitated by the circumstances or the
progress of the investigation. To come to this
Court directly seeking an order of transfer is
travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that
if the second petitioner is ailing, as is
represented, and this fact is brought to the notice
of the Court which has directed her appearance,
just orders will be passed in case there is
veracity behind the representation. We need hardly
say courts should use their processes to the
purpose of advancing justice, not to harass
parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for
transfer is concerned. there is no merit we can
see and so we dismiss it.”
16. The contrary references cited by the Petitioner
where transfer of investigation was allowed, do not in
any manner, refer to a determination on the question
of competence to transfer investigation under Section
406. In the cited cases, relief was granted without any
discussion of the law, ignoring the long standing ratio
laid down in Ram Chander Singh Sagar (Supra).
17. Having considered the contour of the power under
section 406 CrPC, it must be concluded that only cases
and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred. The
ratio in Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. (Supra) in
my view, is clearly applicable in the present matter.
Page 18 of 35
SCOPE OF SECTION 174 CRPC PROCEEDING
18. 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. These are not
in the nature of investigation, undertaken after filing
of FIR under Section 154 CrPC. In the instant case, in
Mumbai, no FIR has been registered as yet. The Mumbai
Police has neither considered the matter under Section
175 (2) CrPC, suspecting commission of a cognizable
offence nor proceeded for registration of FIR under
Section 154 or referred the matter under Section 157
CrPC, to the nearest magistrate having jurisdiction.
19. On the above aspect, the ratio in Manoj K Sharma
vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1 will bear
scrutiny. This was a case of suicide by hanging and
Justice M B Lokur, speaking for the Bench held as
follows:-
“19. The proceedings under Section 174 have
a very limited scope. The object of the
proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a
person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so
what is the apparent cause of the death. The
question regarding the details as to how the
Page 19 of 35
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him
or under what circumstances he was assaulted
is foreign to the ambit and scope of the
proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.
Neither in practice nor in law was it
necessary for the police to mention those
details in the inquest report. It is,
therefore, not necessary to enter all the
details of the overt acts in the inquest
report. The procedure under Section 174 is
for the purpose of discovering the cause of
death, and the evidence taken was very
short……
20. …… Sections 174 and 175 of the Code
afford a complete Code in itself for the
purpose of “inquiries” in cases of accidental
or suspicious deaths and are entirely
distinct from the “investigation” under
Section 157 of the Code…..
**** **** **** **** ****
22. In view of the above, we are of the
opinion that the investigation on an inquiry
under Section 174 of the Code is distinct
from the investigation as contemplated under
Section 154 of the Code relating to
commission of a cognizable offence…..”
20. 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.
Page 20 of 35
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. In case of a future possibility
of cognizance being taken by two courts in different
jurisdictions, the issue could be resolved under
Section 186 CrPC and other applicable laws. No opinion
is therefore expressed on a future contingency and the
issue is left open to be decided, if needed, in
accordance with law.
21. 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.
JURISDICTION OF PATNA POLICE TO REGISTER COMPLAINT
22. 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. According to the
Complainant, his attempt from Patna to talk to his son
Page 21 of 35
on telephone was thwarted by the accused persons and
the possibility of saving the life of his son through
father son engagement, was missed out. In consequence,
the Complainant lost his only son who at the
appropriate time, as the learned counsel has vividly
submitted, was expected to light the funeral pyre of
the father.
23. 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. On this aspect the ratio in Lalita Kumari Vs.
Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 is relevant where on behalf
of the Constitution Bench, Chief Justice P Sathasivam,
pronounced as under:-
“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and
no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
120.2. If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry
may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.”
Page 22 of 35
24. The interpretation of Sections 177 and 178 of the
CrPC would be relevant on the issue. In Satvinder Kaur
Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 for
the Division Bench, Justice M B Shah wrote as under:-
“12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would
make it clear that Section 177 provides for
“ordinary” place of enquiry or trial. Section 178,
inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial
when it is uncertain in which of several local
areas an offence was committed or where the offence
was committed partly in one local area and partly
in another and where it consisted of several acts
done in different local areas, it could be enquired
into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over
any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of
investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does
not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate
the crime.”
25. Likewise, Justice Arijit Pasayat, in Y Abraham
Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8
SCC 100, writing for the Division Bench pronounced as
follows:-
“12. The crucial question is whether any part
of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms
of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place
where the offence was committed. In essence it
is the cause of action for initiation of the
proceedings against the accused.
Page 23 of 35
13. While in civil cases, normally the
expression “cause of action” is used, in
criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the
Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction
where the offence is committed. These
variations in etymological expression do not
really make the position different. The
expression “cause of action” is, therefore, not
a stranger to criminal cases.
14. It is settled law that cause of action
consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause
to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a
court of law. In other words, it is a bundle
of facts, which taken with the law applicable
to them, gives the allegedly affected party a
right to claim relief against the opponent. It
must include some act done by the latter since
in the absence of such an act no cause of action
would possibly accrue or would arise.”
26. When allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust and
Misappropriation is made, on the jurisdictional aspect,
this Court in Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad
Ojha (2007) 5 SCC 786, in the judgment written by
Justice S B Sinha, observed as under:-
“21. Section 181 provides for place of trial in
case of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of
Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal
Procedure in 1973 as there existed conflict in the
decisions of various High Courts as regards
commission of offence of criminal misappropriation
and criminal breach of trust and with that end in
view, it was provided that such an offence may be
inquired into or tried by the court within whose
jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by
contract to render accounts or return the entrusted
property, but failed to discharge that obligation.
Page 24 of 35
22. The provisions referred to hereinbefore
clearly suggest that even if a part of cause of
action has arisen, the police station concerned
situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance under Section 190(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the
jurisdiction to make investigation.”
27. In the later judgment of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri
Vs. State of Gujarat (2008)8 SCC 300, this Court
reiterated the ratio in Satvinder Kaur(supra) and Asit
Bhattacharjee (Supra).
28. Once again, in Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar Vs.
State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC 1, while approving the
earlier decisions in Satvinder Kaur(supra) in the
judgment rendered by Justice Altamas Kabir as he was
then, the Supreme Court made it very clear that a police
officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on
territorial ground and the issue can be decided after
conclusion of the investigation. It was thus held:-
“27. In our view, both the trial court as well as
the Bombay High Court had correctly interpreted
the provisions of Section 156 CrPC to hold that it
was not within the jurisdiction of the
investigating agency to refrain itself from
holding a proper and complete investigation merely
upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences
had been committed beyond its territorial
jurisdiction.”
Page 25 of 35
29. 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. This aspect
was dealt succinctly by Justice J S Khehar, as a member
of the Division Bench in Lee Kun Hee, President,
Samsung Corporation, South Korea and Others Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 132 and it was
held as under:-
“38 ******
181. Place of trial in case of certain
offences.—(1)-(3)* * *
(4) Any offence of criminal
misappropriation or of criminal breach of
trust may be inquired into or tried by a
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.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision leaves
no room for any doubt, that in offences of
the nature as are subject-matter of
consideration in the present controversy,
the court within whose local jurisdiction,
the whole or a part of the consideration
Page 26 of 35
“… were required to be returned or
accounted for.…” would have jurisdiction
in the matter.”
30. Having regard to the law enunciated by this Court
as noted above, it must be held that the Patna police
committed no illegality in registering the Complaint.
Looking at the nature of the allegations in the
Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and
breach of trust, the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Bihar Police appears to be in order. At the stage of
investigation, they were not required to transfer the
FIR 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.
OPTIONS BEFORE MUMBAI POLICE
31. 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.
The Mumbai Police was inquiring into the unnatural
Page 27 of 35
death of the complainant’s son under section 174 of the
CrPC. So far, their inquiry has not resulted in any FIR
suggesting commencement of investigation on the
criminal aspects, if any. However, the incidents
referred to in the Complaint does indicate 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.
INVESTIGATION ENTRUSTMENT TO CBI
32. 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. For this proposition, one can usefully
refer to State of West Bengal Vs. Sampat Lal (1985) 1
SCC 317 where Justice Ranganath Mishra in his judgment
for the 3 judges Bench, held that:-
“13. ……….It is certainly not for this Court at the
present stage to examine and come to a conclusion
as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder.
If as a result of investigation, evidence is
Page 28 of 35
gathered and a trial takes place the Sessions Judge
will decide that controversy and it may be that in
due course such controversy may be canvassed before
this Court in some form or the other. It would,
therefore, be wholly inappropriate at this stage
to enter into such a question.…………In our considered
opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when
the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct
an investigation and counsel for the parties
rightly did not dispute this position……………”
33. Similarly, the Constitution Bench in the judgment
authored by Justice D K Jain in State of W B Vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3
SCC 571 pronounced as follows:-
“68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions
in the context of the constitutional scheme, we
conclude as follows:
(v) Restriction on Parliament by the Constitution
and restriction on the executive by Parliament
under an enactment, do not amount to restriction
on the power of the Judiciary under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2-A and
Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation
by another agency is permissible subject to grant
of consent by the State concerned, there is no
reason as to why, in an exceptional situation, the
Court would be precluded from exercising the same
power which the Union could exercise in terms of
the provisions of the statute. In our opinion,
exercise of such power by the constitutional courts
would not violate the doctrine of separation of
powers. In fact, if in such a situation the Court
fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its
constitutional duty.
Page 29 of 35
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides
that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can
take up investigation in relation to the crime
which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the
State police, the Court can also exercise its
constitutional power of judicial review and direct
CBI to take up the investigation within the
jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot
be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6
of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there
being any statutory provision acting as a
restriction on the powers of the Courts, the
restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special
Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be
read as restriction on the powers of the
constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of
power of judicial review by the High Court, in our
opinion, would not amount to infringement of either
the doctrine of separation of power or the federal
structure.”
34. As noted earlier, 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. As the CBI has already
registered a case and commenced investigation at the
Page 30 of 35
instance of the Bihar government, uncertainty and
confusion must be avoided in the event of Mumbai Police
also deciding to simultaneously investigate the
cognizable offence, based on their finding in the
inquiry proceeding. Therefore, it would be appropriate
to decide at this stage itself as to who should conduct
the investigation on all the attending circumstances
relating to the death of the actor Sushant Singh
Rajput. This issue becomes relevant only if another FIR
is registered on the same issue, at Mumbai. A decision
by this Court on the point would confer legitimacy to
the investigation.
DIRECTION ON INVESTIGATION
35. The conflict between the two State governments on,
who amongst the two is competent to investigate the
case, is apparent here. In K.V. Rajendran Vs.
Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai & Ors. (2013)
12 SCC 480, the 3 judges Bench in the judgment authored
by Justice Dr B S Chauhan held that transfer of
investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases in
order to do complete justice between the parties and
to instil straight confidence in the public mind.
Page 31 of 35
While the steps taken by the Mumbai police in the
limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC may not be
faulted on the material available before this Court,
considering the apprehension voiced by the stakeholders
of unfair investigation, this Court must strive to
ensure that search for the truth is undertaken by an
independent agency, not controlled by either of the two
state governments. Most importantly, the credibility
of the investigation and the investigating authority,
must be protected.
36. The ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be
lawful. In the event a new case is registered at Mumbai
on the same issue, in the fitness of things, it would
be appropriate if the latter case too gets investigated
by the same agency, on the strength of this Court’s
order. Such enabling order will make it possible for
the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the
rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring consent
from the State of Maharashtra.
37. In Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Justice L.S. Panta
Page 32 of 35
in his judgment, referred to the inherent power
conferred on this Court and stated the following:-
“45. 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. What would be
the need of “complete justice” in a cause
or matter would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and while
exercising that power the Court would
take into consideration the express
provisions of a substantive statute. Any
prohibition or restriction contained in
ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation
on the constitutional power of this
Court. Once this Court has seisin of a
cause or matter before it, it has power
to issue any order or direction to do
“complete justice” in the matter.”
38. The above ratio makes it amply clear that the
Supreme Court in a deserving case, can invoke Article
142 powers to render justice. The peculiar
circumstances in this case require that complete
justice is done in this matter. How this is to be
achieved must now be decided.
Page 33 of 35
39. As noted earlier, as because both states are making
acrimonious allegations of political interference
against each other, the legitimacy of the investigation
has come under a cloud. Accusing fingers are being
pointed and people have taken the liberty to put out
their own conjectures and theories. Such comments,
responsible or otherwise, have led to speculative
public discourse which have hogged media limelight.
These developments unfortunately have the propensity
to delay and misdirect the investigation. In such
situation, there is reasonable apprehension of truth
being a casualty and justice becoming a victim.
40. The actor Sushant Singh Rajput was a talented actor
in the Mumbai film world and died well before his full
potential could be realised. His family, friends and
admirers are keenly waiting the outcome of the
investigation so that all the speculations floating
around can be put to rest. Therefore a fair, competent
and impartial investigation is the need of the hour.
The expected outcome then would be, a measure of
justice for the Complainant, who lost his only son.
Page 34 of 35
For the petitioner too, it will be the desired justice
as she herself called for a CBI investigation. The
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.
41. 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
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.
42. Before parting, it is made clear that the
conclusion and observations in this order is only for
disposal of this petition and should have no bearing
for any other purpose.
43. The Transfer Petition is disposed of with the above
order.
…………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 19, 2020
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020
Rhea Chakraborty Petitioner
Versus
State of Bihar & Ors. Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, J.
1. This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC”) read with Order XXXIX of the 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 (for short “IPC”) registered at the
Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna and all
consequential proceedings, from the jurisdiction of the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar,
Page 2 of 35
to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra
Mumbai. The matter relates to the 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 CrPC
was reported.
2. The petitioner is a friend of the deceased, and she
too is in the acting field since last many years. As
regards the allegations against the petitioner in the
FIR, the petitioner claims that she has been falsely
implicated in the Patna FIR, filed by Krishan Kishor
Singh (respondent no. 2) – the father of the deceased
actor. The petitioner and the deceased were in a livein relationship but on 8.6.2020, a few days prior to
the death of the actor, she had shifted to her own
residence at Mumbai. According to the petitioner, the
Mumbai Police is competent to undertake the
investigation, even for the FIR lodged at Patna.
3. Heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Maninder Singh,
Page 3 of 35
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar), Mr. Vikas Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent No. 2 (Complainant), Dr. A.M. Singhvi and
Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No. 3 (State of Maharashtra) and
Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 (Union of
India)
4. 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. Mr Shyam Divan, the learned
Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the
courts in Bihar do not exercise lawful jurisdiction in
the subject matter of the Complaint and since the acts
Page 4 of 35
alleged in the Complaint are relatable to Mumbai
jurisdiction, the mere factum of Complainant being a
resident of Patna, does not confer jurisdiction on the
Bihar police to conduct the investigation. Adverting
to the subsequent transfer of the investigation to the
CBI, Mr. Divan argues that since the 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”). The FIR according to the petitioner is
contradictory and the Complaint fails to disclose how
the alleged actions of the petitioner, led to the
suicidal death of the actor. The petitioner projects
that she has fully co-operated with the Mumbai Police
in their inquiry but will have no objection if the
investigation is conducted by the CBI. Mr. Shyam Divan
the learned Senior Counsel submits that justice needs
to be done in this case and powers under Article 142
of the Constitution can be invoked by the Court.
Page 5 of 35
5. Representing the State of Bihar, Mr. Maninder Singh,
the learned Senior Counsel submits that 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.
Referring to the non-cooperation and obstruction of the
Maharashtra authorities to the SIT of Bihar Police
which reached Mumbai on 27.07.2020 and the quarantined
detention of the Superintendent of Police, Patna who
had reached Mumbai on 02.08.2020, senior counsel argues
that the Mumbai Police was trying to suppress the real
Page 6 of 35
facts and were not conducting a fair and professional
inquiry. Since no investigation relatable to the
allegations in the complaint was being conducted and
FIR was not registered by the Mumbai Police, the action
of the Bihar Police in registering the Complaint, is
contended to be legally justified. On that basis, the
Bihar Government’s consent for entrustment of the
investigation to the CBI is submitted to satisfy the
requirement of Section 6 of the DSPE Act. Besides, as
the petitioner herself has called for a CBI
investigation and as the CBI has since registered a
case and commenced their investigation, (on the request
of the State of Bihar), the Senior Counsel submits that
this transfer petition is infructuous.
6. Projecting the agony of the deceased’s father, Mr.
Vikas Singh, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
the Complainant has lost his only son under suspicious
circumstances and was naturally interested in a fair
investigation to unravel the truth. The inquiry by
the Mumbai Police under section 174 of the CrPC is not
an investigation of the complainant’s allegations and
therefore the registration of the case and
Page 7 of 35
investigation into those allegations by the Bihar
Police is contended to be justified. 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. When misappropriation and criminal
breach of trust is alleged in respect of the assets of
the deceased actor and the concerned property relatable
to the alleged offence, will have to be accounted
eventually to the Complainant (as a Class I legal heir
of the deceased), 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.
7. Representing the State of Maharashtra, Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
following the unnatural death of Sushant Singh Rajput
on 14.06.2020 at his Bandra residence, 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. In course of the
inquiry, the statements of 56 persons were recorded and
other evidence such as the Post Mortem report, Forensic
report etc have been collected. If the inquiry
discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the
Mumbai police will register a FIR. According to Dr.
Singhvi, there can be no outer time limit for
conclusion of Section 174 or Section 175 CrPC
proceedings. The State of Maharashtra Counsel argues
that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into
and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction,
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. Pointing towards
potential misuse, Dr. Singhvi submits that if
registration of Complaint in another state is
permitted, it will enable a person to choose the
Page 9 of 35
investigating authority and will obstruct exercise of
lawful jurisdiction by the local police. This will
impact the country’s federal structure. The Senior
Counsel refers to media reports to project that the
Bihar Police were hesitant to register the Complaint
of Respondent No 2 but they were prevailed upon by
political pressure. The Maharashtra counsel submits
that the father and other family members of the
deceased in their statements to the Mumbai Police,
never mentioned about the allegations in the Complaint
and those are projected to be afterthoughts and
improvements. Under the constitutional scheme, the
States have exclusive power to investigate a crime and
the 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, given
by the Bihar Police for entrusting the investigation
to the CBI, Dr. Singhvi argues that the reasons are
neither germane nor bona fide. He submits that
ordinarily, the local police should conduct
investigation into any reported crime and entrustment
Page 10 of 35
of the investigation to the CBI must be an exception
to meet extraordinary exigencies, but here consent was
given by Bihar government, for political exigencies.
8. Mr Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General of
India, appears for the Union of India and the CBI. 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. He therefore contends that the present 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, Mr. Mehta submits
that this itself justifies entrustment of the
investigation to an independent Central Agency. The
learned Solicitor General then points out that by
acceding to the request made by the State of Bihar, the
CBI has registered the FIR and commenced investigation.
Page 11 of 35
Besides the Directorate of Enforcement, a central
agency, is also acting under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. He therefore argues that a fair
and impartial inquiry can be ensured if the police of
either state are kept away from investigating the
alleged crime, relating to the suspicious death of the
film actor. Adverting to the affidavit of the
Maharashtra Police that they have recorded the
statements of 56 persons in the section 174
proceedings, the Solicitor General submits that since
FIR is not yet registered and the Mumbai Police is
discharging limited functions under section 174 of the
CrPC, the investigation of any alleged crime following
registration of FIR is yet to legally commence in
Mumbai and as such, there is no case pending in the
State of Maharashtra which can justify the invocation
of powers under section 406 of the CrPC.
9. 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
Page 12 of 35
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.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner repose
confidence on Mumbai police. The records of the case
produced before this Court, does not prima facie
suggest any wrong doing by the Mumbai Police. However,
their obstruction to the Bihar police team at Mumbai
could have been avoided since it gave rise to suspicion
on the bonafide of their inquiry. The Police at Mumbai
were conducting only a limited inquiry into the cause
of unnatural death, under Section 174 CrPC and
therefore, it cannot be said with certainty at this
stage that they will not undertake an investigation on
the other aspects of the unnatural death, by
registering a FIR.
Page 13 of 35
11. Uncertain about the future contingency at Mumbai,
the father of the deceased has filed the Complaint at
Patna, levelling serious allegations against the
petitioner following which, the FIR is registered and
the Bihar Police has started their investigation. The
case is now taken over by the CBI at the request of the
Bihar government. The petitioner has no objection for
investigation by the CBI, but is sceptical about the
bonafide of the steps taken by the Bihar government and
the Patna police.
12. On the other hand, the projection from the side of
the Complainant and the Bihar government is that the
Mumbai Police even during the limited inquiry under
Section 174 CrPC, are attempting to shield the real
culprits under political pressure. This is however,
stoutly refuted by the State of Maharashtra whose stand
is that the Bihar police has no jurisdiction to
investigate the crime where, the incident and criminal
acts if any, have occurred within the State of
Maharashtra.
Page 14 of 35
13. 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.
In order to lend credibility to the investigation and
its conclusion, it would be desirable in my view, to
specify the authority, which should conduct the
investigation in this matter.
Page 15 of 35
14. At this stage, having regard to the respective
stand of the parties, following core issues arise for
consideration in this case:
(a) Whether this Court has power to transfer
investigation (not case or appeal) under Section 406
of the CrPC;
(b) Whether the proceeding under Section 174 CrPC
conducted by the Mumbai Police to inquire into the
unnatural death, can be termed as an investigation;
(c) 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; and
(d) 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.
TRANSFER POWER UNDER SECTION 406 CRPC
15. Section 406 CrPC empowers the Supreme Court to
transfer cases and appeals. The scope of exercise of
Page 16 of 35
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. However, transfer of investigation on the
other hand was negated by this Court in the case of Ram
Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(1978) 2 SCC 35. Writing the judgment Justice V R
Krishna Iyer, declared that:-
“The Code of Criminal Procedure clothes this Court
with power under Section 406 to transfer a case or
appeal from one High Court or a Court subordinate
to one High Court to another High Court or to a
Court subordinate thereto. But, it does not clothe
this Court with the power to transfer
investigations from one police station to another
in the country simply because the first information
or a remand report is for warded to a Court. The
application before us stems from a misconception
about the scope of Section 406. There is as yet no
case pending before any Court as has been made
clear in the counter affidavit of the State of
Tamil Nadu. In the light of this counter affidavit,
nothing can be done except to dismiss this
petition.
“ 2. If the petitioners are being directed to
appear in a far-off court during investigatory
stage it is for them to move that court for
appropriate orders so that they may not be
tormented by long travel or otherwise teased by
judicial process. If justice is denied there are
other redresses, not under Section 406, though it
Page 17 of 35
is unfortunate that the petitioners have not chosen
to move that court to be absolved from appearance
until necessitated by the circumstances or the
progress of the investigation. To come to this
Court directly seeking an order of transfer is
travelling along the wrong street. We are sure that
if the second petitioner is ailing, as is
represented, and this fact is brought to the notice
of the Court which has directed her appearance,
just orders will be passed in case there is
veracity behind the representation. We need hardly
say courts should use their processes to the
purpose of advancing justice, not to harass
parties. Anyway, so far as the petition for
transfer is concerned. there is no merit we can
see and so we dismiss it.”
16. The contrary references cited by the Petitioner
where transfer of investigation was allowed, do not in
any manner, refer to a determination on the question
of competence to transfer investigation under Section
406. In the cited cases, relief was granted without any
discussion of the law, ignoring the long standing ratio
laid down in Ram Chander Singh Sagar (Supra).
17. Having considered the contour of the power under
section 406 CrPC, it must be concluded that only cases
and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred. The
ratio in Ram Chander Singh Sagar and Anr. (Supra) in
my view, is clearly applicable in the present matter.
Page 18 of 35
SCOPE OF SECTION 174 CRPC PROCEEDING
18. 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. These are not
in the nature of investigation, undertaken after filing
of FIR under Section 154 CrPC. In the instant case, in
Mumbai, no FIR has been registered as yet. The Mumbai
Police has neither considered the matter under Section
175 (2) CrPC, suspecting commission of a cognizable
offence nor proceeded for registration of FIR under
Section 154 or referred the matter under Section 157
CrPC, to the nearest magistrate having jurisdiction.
19. On the above aspect, the ratio in Manoj K Sharma
vs. State of Chhatisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1 will bear
scrutiny. This was a case of suicide by hanging and
Justice M B Lokur, speaking for the Bench held as
follows:-
“19. The proceedings under Section 174 have
a very limited scope. The object of the
proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a
person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so
what is the apparent cause of the death. The
question regarding the details as to how the
Page 19 of 35
deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him
or under what circumstances he was assaulted
is foreign to the ambit and scope of the
proceedings under Section 174 of the Code.
Neither in practice nor in law was it
necessary for the police to mention those
details in the inquest report. It is,
therefore, not necessary to enter all the
details of the overt acts in the inquest
report. The procedure under Section 174 is
for the purpose of discovering the cause of
death, and the evidence taken was very
short……
20. …… Sections 174 and 175 of the Code
afford a complete Code in itself for the
purpose of “inquiries” in cases of accidental
or suspicious deaths and are entirely
distinct from the “investigation” under
Section 157 of the Code…..
**** **** **** **** ****
22. In view of the above, we are of the
opinion that the investigation on an inquiry
under Section 174 of the Code is distinct
from the investigation as contemplated under
Section 154 of the Code relating to
commission of a cognizable offence…..”
20. 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.
Page 20 of 35
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. In case of a future possibility
of cognizance being taken by two courts in different
jurisdictions, the issue could be resolved under
Section 186 CrPC and other applicable laws. No opinion
is therefore expressed on a future contingency and the
issue is left open to be decided, if needed, in
accordance with law.
21. 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.
JURISDICTION OF PATNA POLICE TO REGISTER COMPLAINT
22. 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. According to the
Complainant, his attempt from Patna to talk to his son
Page 21 of 35
on telephone was thwarted by the accused persons and
the possibility of saving the life of his son through
father son engagement, was missed out. In consequence,
the Complainant lost his only son who at the
appropriate time, as the learned counsel has vividly
submitted, was expected to light the funeral pyre of
the father.
23. 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. On this aspect the ratio in Lalita Kumari Vs.
Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1 is relevant where on behalf
of the Constitution Bench, Chief Justice P Sathasivam,
pronounced as under:-
“120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under
Section 154 of the Code, if the information
discloses commission of a cognizable offence and
no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
120.2. If the information received does not
disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the
necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry
may be conducted only to ascertain whether
cognizable offence is disclosed or not.”
Page 22 of 35
24. The interpretation of Sections 177 and 178 of the
CrPC would be relevant on the issue. In Satvinder Kaur
Vs. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728 for
the Division Bench, Justice M B Shah wrote as under:-
“12. A reading of the aforesaid sections would
make it clear that Section 177 provides for
“ordinary” place of enquiry or trial. Section 178,
inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial
when it is uncertain in which of several local
areas an offence was committed or where the offence
was committed partly in one local area and partly
in another and where it consisted of several acts
done in different local areas, it could be enquired
into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over
any of such local areas. Hence, at the stage of
investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does
not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate
the crime.”
25. Likewise, Justice Arijit Pasayat, in Y Abraham
Ajith vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8
SCC 100, writing for the Division Bench pronounced as
follows:-
“12. The crucial question is whether any part
of the cause of action arose within the
jurisdiction of the court concerned. In terms
of Section 177 of the Code, it is the place
where the offence was committed. In essence it
is the cause of action for initiation of the
proceedings against the accused.
Page 23 of 35
13. While in civil cases, normally the
expression “cause of action” is used, in
criminal cases as stated in Section 177 of the
Code, reference is to the local jurisdiction
where the offence is committed. These
variations in etymological expression do not
really make the position different. The
expression “cause of action” is, therefore, not
a stranger to criminal cases.
14. It is settled law that cause of action
consists of a bundle of facts, which give cause
to enforce the legal inquiry for redress in a
court of law. In other words, it is a bundle
of facts, which taken with the law applicable
to them, gives the allegedly affected party a
right to claim relief against the opponent. It
must include some act done by the latter since
in the absence of such an act no cause of action
would possibly accrue or would arise.”
26. When allegation of Criminal Breach of Trust and
Misappropriation is made, on the jurisdictional aspect,
this Court in Asit Bhattacharjee Vs. Hanuman Prasad
Ojha (2007) 5 SCC 786, in the judgment written by
Justice S B Sinha, observed as under:-
“21. Section 181 provides for place of trial in
case of certain offences. Sub-section (4) of
Section 181 was introduced in the Code of Criminal
Procedure in 1973 as there existed conflict in the
decisions of various High Courts as regards
commission of offence of criminal misappropriation
and criminal breach of trust and with that end in
view, it was provided that such an offence may be
inquired into or tried by the court within whose
jurisdiction the accused was bound by law or by
contract to render accounts or return the entrusted
property, but failed to discharge that obligation.
Page 24 of 35
22. The provisions referred to hereinbefore
clearly suggest that even if a part of cause of
action has arisen, the police station concerned
situate within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
empowered to take cognizance under Section 190(1)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure will have the
jurisdiction to make investigation.”
27. In the later judgment of Naresh Kavarchand Khatri
Vs. State of Gujarat (2008)8 SCC 300, this Court
reiterated the ratio in Satvinder Kaur(supra) and Asit
Bhattacharjee (Supra).
28. Once again, in Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar Vs.
State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC 1, while approving the
earlier decisions in Satvinder Kaur(supra) in the
judgment rendered by Justice Altamas Kabir as he was
then, the Supreme Court made it very clear that a police
officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter on
territorial ground and the issue can be decided after
conclusion of the investigation. It was thus held:-
“27. In our view, both the trial court as well as
the Bombay High Court had correctly interpreted
the provisions of Section 156 CrPC to hold that it
was not within the jurisdiction of the
investigating agency to refrain itself from
holding a proper and complete investigation merely
upon arriving at a conclusion that the offences
had been committed beyond its territorial
jurisdiction.”
Page 25 of 35
29. 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. This aspect
was dealt succinctly by Justice J S Khehar, as a member
of the Division Bench in Lee Kun Hee, President,
Samsung Corporation, South Korea and Others Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 3 SCC 132 and it was
held as under:-
“38 ******
181. Place of trial in case of certain
offences.—(1)-(3)* * *
(4) Any offence of criminal
misappropriation or of criminal breach of
trust may be inquired into or tried by a
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.”
A perusal of the aforesaid provision leaves
no room for any doubt, that in offences of
the nature as are subject-matter of
consideration in the present controversy,
the court within whose local jurisdiction,
the whole or a part of the consideration
Page 26 of 35
“… were required to be returned or
accounted for.…” would have jurisdiction
in the matter.”
30. Having regard to the law enunciated by this Court
as noted above, it must be held that the Patna police
committed no illegality in registering the Complaint.
Looking at the nature of the allegations in the
Complaint which also relate to misappropriation and
breach of trust, the exercise of jurisdiction by the
Bihar Police appears to be in order. At the stage of
investigation, they were not required to transfer the
FIR 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.
OPTIONS BEFORE MUMBAI POLICE
31. 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.
The Mumbai Police was inquiring into the unnatural
Page 27 of 35
death of the complainant’s son under section 174 of the
CrPC. So far, their inquiry has not resulted in any FIR
suggesting commencement of investigation on the
criminal aspects, if any. However, the incidents
referred to in the Complaint does indicate 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.
INVESTIGATION ENTRUSTMENT TO CBI
32. 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. For this proposition, one can usefully
refer to State of West Bengal Vs. Sampat Lal (1985) 1
SCC 317 where Justice Ranganath Mishra in his judgment
for the 3 judges Bench, held that:-
“13. ……….It is certainly not for this Court at the
present stage to examine and come to a conclusion
as to whether this was a case of suicide or murder.
If as a result of investigation, evidence is
Page 28 of 35
gathered and a trial takes place the Sessions Judge
will decide that controversy and it may be that in
due course such controversy may be canvassed before
this Court in some form or the other. It would,
therefore, be wholly inappropriate at this stage
to enter into such a question.…………In our considered
opinion, Section 6 of the Act does not apply when
the Court gives a direction to the CBI to conduct
an investigation and counsel for the parties
rightly did not dispute this position……………”
33. Similarly, the Constitution Bench in the judgment
authored by Justice D K Jain in State of W B Vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010) 3
SCC 571 pronounced as follows:-
“68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions
in the context of the constitutional scheme, we
conclude as follows:
(v) Restriction on Parliament by the Constitution
and restriction on the executive by Parliament
under an enactment, do not amount to restriction
on the power of the Judiciary under Articles 32
and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2-A and
Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation
by another agency is permissible subject to grant
of consent by the State concerned, there is no
reason as to why, in an exceptional situation, the
Court would be precluded from exercising the same
power which the Union could exercise in terms of
the provisions of the statute. In our opinion,
exercise of such power by the constitutional courts
would not violate the doctrine of separation of
powers. In fact, if in such a situation the Court
fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its
constitutional duty.
Page 29 of 35
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides
that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can
take up investigation in relation to the crime
which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the
State police, the Court can also exercise its
constitutional power of judicial review and direct
CBI to take up the investigation within the
jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot
be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6
of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there
being any statutory provision acting as a
restriction on the powers of the Courts, the
restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special
Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be
read as restriction on the powers of the
constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of
power of judicial review by the High Court, in our
opinion, would not amount to infringement of either
the doctrine of separation of power or the federal
structure.”
34. As noted earlier, 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. As the CBI has already
registered a case and commenced investigation at the
Page 30 of 35
instance of the Bihar government, uncertainty and
confusion must be avoided in the event of Mumbai Police
also deciding to simultaneously investigate the
cognizable offence, based on their finding in the
inquiry proceeding. Therefore, it would be appropriate
to decide at this stage itself as to who should conduct
the investigation on all the attending circumstances
relating to the death of the actor Sushant Singh
Rajput. This issue becomes relevant only if another FIR
is registered on the same issue, at Mumbai. A decision
by this Court on the point would confer legitimacy to
the investigation.
DIRECTION ON INVESTIGATION
35. The conflict between the two State governments on,
who amongst the two is competent to investigate the
case, is apparent here. In K.V. Rajendran Vs.
Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Chennai & Ors. (2013)
12 SCC 480, the 3 judges Bench in the judgment authored
by Justice Dr B S Chauhan held that transfer of
investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases in
order to do complete justice between the parties and
to instil straight confidence in the public mind.
Page 31 of 35
While the steps taken by the Mumbai police in the
limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC may not be
faulted on the material available before this Court,
considering the apprehension voiced by the stakeholders
of unfair investigation, this Court must strive to
ensure that search for the truth is undertaken by an
independent agency, not controlled by either of the two
state governments. Most importantly, the credibility
of the investigation and the investigating authority,
must be protected.
36. The ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be
lawful. In the event a new case is registered at Mumbai
on the same issue, in the fitness of things, it would
be appropriate if the latter case too gets investigated
by the same agency, on the strength of this Court’s
order. Such enabling order will make it possible for
the CBI to investigate the new case, avoiding the
rigors of Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring consent
from the State of Maharashtra.
37. In Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2008) 8 SCC 781, Justice L.S. Panta
Page 32 of 35
in his judgment, referred to the inherent power
conferred on this Court and stated the following:-
“45. 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. What would be
the need of “complete justice” in a cause
or matter would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and while
exercising that power the Court would
take into consideration the express
provisions of a substantive statute. Any
prohibition or restriction contained in
ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation
on the constitutional power of this
Court. Once this Court has seisin of a
cause or matter before it, it has power
to issue any order or direction to do
“complete justice” in the matter.”
38. The above ratio makes it amply clear that the
Supreme Court in a deserving case, can invoke Article
142 powers to render justice. The peculiar
circumstances in this case require that complete
justice is done in this matter. How this is to be
achieved must now be decided.
Page 33 of 35
39. As noted earlier, as because both states are making
acrimonious allegations of political interference
against each other, the legitimacy of the investigation
has come under a cloud. Accusing fingers are being
pointed and people have taken the liberty to put out
their own conjectures and theories. Such comments,
responsible or otherwise, have led to speculative
public discourse which have hogged media limelight.
These developments unfortunately have the propensity
to delay and misdirect the investigation. In such
situation, there is reasonable apprehension of truth
being a casualty and justice becoming a victim.
40. The actor Sushant Singh Rajput was a talented actor
in the Mumbai film world and died well before his full
potential could be realised. His family, friends and
admirers are keenly waiting the outcome of the
investigation so that all the speculations floating
around can be put to rest. Therefore a fair, competent
and impartial investigation is the need of the hour.
The expected outcome then would be, a measure of
justice for the Complainant, who lost his only son.
Page 34 of 35
For the petitioner too, it will be the desired justice
as she herself called for a CBI investigation. The
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.
41. 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
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.
42. Before parting, it is made clear that the
conclusion and observations in this order is only for
disposal of this petition and should have no bearing
for any other purpose.
43. The Transfer Petition is disposed of with the above
order.
…………………………………………J.
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 19, 2020
