Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a transfer petition filed by Rhea Chakraborty seeking transfer of FIR No. 241 of 2020 registered at Patna, Bihar, to Mumbai, Maharashtra. The FIR was lodged by Krishan Kishor Singh, father of deceased actor Sushant Singh Rajput, alleging offences under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B IPC. The petitioner contended that all alleged incidents occurred in Mumbai, thus Bihar police lacked jurisdiction. The court noted that the Mumbai Police had only conducted an inquiry under Section 174 CrPC into the unnatural death and had not registered any FIR. Meanwhile, the Bihar government had consented to entrust the investigation to the CBI under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, and the CBI had already registered a case and commenced investigation. The court held that since the CBI investigation was underway, the transfer petition had become infructuous. The court also observed that the Bihar Police had jurisdiction to register the FIR as the complainant resided in Bihar and consequences of the alleged offences, such as misappropriation of assets, could ensue there. The court dismissed the petition, allowing the CBI investigation to continue.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Transfer of Proceedings - Section 406 CrPC - Territorial Jurisdiction - FIR registered at Patna for offences allegedly committed in Mumbai - Petitioner sought transfer to Mumbai - Court held that since CBI has already taken over investigation and registered a case, transfer petition has become infructuous - No interference warranted (Paras 1-12).
B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Section 174 CrPC - Inquiry vs Investigation - Mumbai Police conducted only limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC into unnatural death - No FIR registered by Mumbai Police - Hence, no parallel investigation exists - Bihar Police justified in registering FIR (Paras 5-8).
C) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Sections 179, 181(4) CrPC - Consequences of Offence - Allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of assets of deceased - Complainant is legal heir residing in Bihar - Consequences of offence may ensue in Bihar - Bihar Police had jurisdiction to register FIR (Paras 6-7).
D) Police and Investigation - Central Bureau of Investigation - Section 6 DSPE Act - Consent of State Government - Bihar government's consent for CBI investigation is lawful as Bihar Police had jurisdiction - Transfer of investigation to CBI valid (Paras 4-5).
E) Constitutional Law - Federal Structure - State Police Jurisdiction - Registration of FIR in another state does not per se violate federal structure - Each state police can register FIR if cognizable offence is disclosed (Paras 7-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered at Patna, Bihar, for offences allegedly committed in Mumbai, should be transferred to Mumbai for investigation, and whether the subsequent entrustment of investigation to CBI by Bihar government's consent is lawful.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the transfer petition, holding that the CBI investigation has already commenced and the petition has become infructuous. The court did not interfere with the ongoing CBI investigation.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of police to register FIR
- Section 406 CrPC transfer of proceedings
- Section 6 DSPE Act consent for CBI investigation
- Section 174 CrPC inquiry vs investigation
- Section 179 and 181(4) CrPC territorial jurisdiction for consequences of offence
Case Details
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020
Shyam Divan, Maninder Singh, Vikas Singh, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, R. Basant, Tushar Mehta
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Transfer petition under Section 406 CrPC seeking transfer of FIR and investigation from Patna, Bihar to Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Remedy Sought
Transfer of FIR No. 241 of 2020 registered at Rajeev Nagar Police Station, Patna, and all consequential proceedings, to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claims false implication in FIR lodged by deceased's father; contends that all alleged incidents occurred in Mumbai, hence Bihar police lacks jurisdiction.
Issues
Whether the FIR registered at Patna, Bihar, for offences allegedly committed in Mumbai, should be transferred to Mumbai for investigation?
Whether the subsequent entrustment of investigation to CBI by Bihar government's consent is lawful?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner: All incidents occurred in Mumbai; Bihar police lacks jurisdiction; FIR was registered due to political pressure; CBI investigation on Bihar's consent is invalid as Bihar police had no jurisdiction.
Respondent No. 1 (State of Bihar): FIR disclosed cognizable offence; consequences of offence (misappropriation) ensue in Bihar; Mumbai Police only conducted limited inquiry under Section 174 CrPC; CBI investigation is lawful.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant): Complainant is legal heir; investigation by Bihar Police is justified; transfer petition is infructuous as CBI has already commenced investigation.
Respondent No. 3 (State of Maharashtra): Offence occurred in Mumbai; Bihar police should have transferred complaint to Mumbai; registration of FIR in another state violates federal structure.
Respondent No. 4 (Union of India): Only FIR is at Patna; Mumbai Police has not registered any FIR; independent CBI investigation is necessary for fair inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi
Since the CBI has already taken over the investigation and registered a case, the transfer petition seeking transfer of the FIR from Patna to Mumbai has become infructuous. The court need not examine the jurisdictional issues as the investigation is now with an independent central agency.
Judgment Excerpts
This Transfer Petition is filed under section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973... with prayer for transfer of the FIR No. 241 of 2020...
The matter relates to the unnatural death of the actor Sushant Singh Rajput on 14.6.2020, at his Bandra residence at Mumbai.
The petitioner is a friend of the deceased...
The petitioner contends that the incidents alleged in the Complaint... have taken place entirely within the jurisdiction of State of Maharashtra...
Representing the State of Bihar, Mr. Maninder Singh... submits that the Complaint disclosed a cognizable offence...
Projecting the agony of the deceased’s father, Mr. Vikas Singh... submits that the Complainant has lost his only son under suspicious circumstances...
Representing the State of Maharashtra, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi... submits that... the Mumbai Police registered an Accidental Death Report(ADR) and commenced inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC...
Mr Tushar Mehta... submits that... the Maharashtra Police is yet to register any FIR but is conducting only a limited inquiry under section 174 of the CrPC...
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.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 174, 175, 179, 181(4), 406
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506, 120B
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: 6
- Supreme Court Rules, 2013: Order XXXIX
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:
