THE LINES ARE BLURRED

YB WEB DESK. Dated: 10/23/2020 11:23:06 AM


AMIT JAISWAL The judgment in the Rhea Chakraborty case has virtually laid down a new norm with regard to police jurisdictions, one which may be misused by complainants One issue which has captured the imagination of India and occupied most of the space in the country’s electronic and print news media in recent times, especially some television channels, is the untimely death by suicide of actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR). The young man, who was originally from Bihar, was found dead in his home in Bandra, Mumbai on June 14, where he had hung himself. Going by the set procedures in such cases and given that this was a high-profile one involving a celebrity’s death, the Mumbai Police went about its work diligently. It recorded the statements of 56 people, including the immediate family members, relatives, live-in partner, friends and staff of the deceased actor. At that point of the investigation, none of them alleged any foul play. Their statements, too, did not suggest a cognisable offence. Consequently, the Mumbai Police registered the matter as an accidental death and proceeded in terms of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, after about 40 days, on July 25, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered at the Rajiv Nagar police station in Patna, Bihar, at the instance of the actor’s father, KK Singh, levelling allegations of breach of trust, misappropriation of property of his deceased son and abetment to suicide against his live-in partner Rhea Chakraborty and her family members. A police team from Patna went to Mumbai to carry out the investigation. However, the Mumbai Police raised the issue of jurisdiction and there was a lot of acrimony over the issue. Finally, on the recommendation of the Bihar Government, the Central Government directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry out the probe in the matter. Meanwhile Rhea Chakraborty approached the Supreme Court under Section 406 of the CrPC for the transfer of the FIR from the jurisdiction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Patna Sadar, to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai. Now, the settled legal position is that the FIR has to be registered at the police station, which has jurisdiction over the area where the offence or any part of it is alleged to have been committed. Prima facie the Patna Police had no jurisdiction to register an FIR in the matter. Even if the complaint filed with the Bihar Police disclosed commission of some cognisable offence, the established procedure would be to register a “zero FIR” and transfer it to the police station empowered to do so. The Section which becomes relevant in this matter is Section 181(4) of the CrPC. It reads, “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.” The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the validity of registering the FIR in Patna, mainly on the ground that the allegations also related to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money, which were to be eventually accounted for in Patna (where the complainant resides) and that could prima facie indicate the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna Police. The apex court heavily relied upon the words “accounted for” in the Section to uphold the validity of the FIR. It did cite a few judgments to substantiate its reasoning. Though it is not possible to discuss every single judgment here, it can safely be said that in none of the cited judgments, the words “accounted for” have been used or applied by the courts. They did not imply that only because the accused would eventually be accountable to legal heirs of the deceased, the FIR could be lodged wherever the legal heirs of the deceased reside, even though no part of the offence has ever taken place within the jurisdiction of that police station. For argument’s sake, let us take a hypothetical case of a businessman, who commits suicide in Mumbai due to alleged financial wrongdoing on the part of his business associate or agent or even a creditor. Now, let us say that one son of the deceased businessman resides in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and another in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. By virtue of this judgment, the police forces of these two places would have the jurisdiction to register an FIR and investigate the matter only because the money was eventually to be accounted for to the satisfaction of the legal heirs in these two cities. Thus, they would have the option to choose the place/State which best suited their interests. An FIR sets criminal law into motion and, therefore, a probe by the police will follow. A police team from Lucknow or Ahmedabad, as the case may be, will have to travel all the way to Mumbai for the investigation, collecting evidence and recording the statements of witnesses. Will any meaningful probe be possible in this manner? Will it not create a situation of political slugfests and inter- State wrangling with regard to investigations by the police force of one State into a crime committed within the territorial jurisdiction of another State? Will every such case then be assigned to the CBI or some other Central agency? Another aspect which needs to be noticed is that as per Supreme Court Rules notified on May 11, a single judge is competent to hear certain bail matters and transfer applications. The relevant apex court rule reads, “Provided that the following categories of matters may be heard and disposed of finally by a judge sitting singly nominated by the Chief Justice: Special leave petitions arising out of grant, dismissal or rejection of Bail Application or Anticipatory Bail Application in the matters filed against the order passed under Section 437, Section 438 or Section 439 of the CrPC 1973 (two of 1974) involving the offences punishable with sentence up to seven years imprisonment; applications for transfer of cases under Section 406 of the CrPC 1973 (two of 1974); application of an urgent nature for transfer of cases under Section 25 of the CrPC 1908 (five of 1908).” Now Rhea Chakraborty filed a petition under Section 406 of the CrPC for transfer of investigation in the FIR registered at Patna, Bihar to Mumbai, which was dismissed by the single judge on the ground that Section 406 of the CrPC does not grant the apex court any such power. Once the petition for transfer itself had been declined, there was no occasion to further decide the jurisdiction of the Patna Police to register an FIR, as it was neither a consequential matter, nor was the decision of transfer petition dependent on the adjudication of validity of the FIR. On the perusal of the Rules reproduced above, there was no occasion for the single judge to adjudicate upon these issues. In effect, the judgment says that in cases where a person commits suicide or is murdered and there are allegations of breach of trust or misappropriation of property, then the FIR can be registered by the legal heirs of the deceased at any police station in India, wherever they reside. The investigation then will have to be carried out by the officer in-charge of that police station, though no part of the offence has ever taken place within its jurisdiction. The judgment in the Rhea Chakraborty case has virtually laid down a new jurisprudence with regard to police jurisdictions. It has blurred lines and has serious implications on the criminal justice system so far as the initiation of criminal proceedings is concerned. This will only result in confusion and is susceptible to misuse by complainants. The court has given an open-ended and wide interpretation to the words “accounted for” in Section 181(4) of the CrPC. This is bound to give birth to myriad and complicated issues in the near future.

 

Face to Face

Face To Face With Atul Kumar Goel (IPS) DIG, Jammu-Samba-Kathua Range J&K... Read More
 

FACEBOOK

 

Twitter

 
 

Daily horoscope

 

Weather