Recently, the Supreme Court on 19 August 2020, in Rhea
Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors¹, has
illuminated on numerous essential elementary ideas of prison regulation
together with energy to switch investigation beneath Section 406 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), nature and scope of inquiry
beneath Section 174 CrPC, territorial jurisdiction of police to
examine and energy of a single Judge beneath Section 406 CrPC for
the aim of justice. The choice has additionally make clear
investigation entrustment to Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI).

Facts

Put shortly, the judgment arises out of a switch petition
beneath Section 406 CrPC filed by the Petitioner for switch of a
First Information Report (FIR) registered at Patna, Bihar and all
subsequent proceedings from the jurisdiction of the involved
Magistrate, Bihar to the involved Magistrate, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
The switch was sought on the bottom that the sufferer/deceased,
whose unnatural loss of life was reported beneath Section 174 CrPC, was
residing throughout the jurisdiction of the involved police station at
Mumbai. The FIR was filed by the daddy of the sufferer/deceased
towards the Petitioner in Patna.

Decision & Analysis

Power to switch investigation beneath Section 406
CrPC

The court docket held {that a} switch plea beneath Section 406 CrPC was
granted in circumstances the place the court docket believed that the trial could also be
prejudiced and truthful and neutral trial can not happen in case
the trial continues. The court docket relied on the lengthy standing ratio in
Ram Chander Singh Sagar & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu² whereby it
was held that Section 406 CrPC pertains to an influence to switch a
case or attraction from one High Court or a court docket subordinate to 1
High Court to a different High Court or to a court docket subordinate thereto.
It doesn’t apply for switch of investigation from one police
station to a different.

In view of the above, the court docket, contemplating the contours of the
energy beneath Section 406 CrPC, concluded that solely circumstances and appeals
will be transferred and never investigation.

Nature and scope of proceedings beneath Section 174
CrPC

The court docket noticed that continuing beneath Section 174 CrPC is
restricted to inquiry carried out by the police to search out out the
obvious reason for an unnatural loss of life. These are usually not
“investigations” as undertaken after submitting of an FIR. As
a matter of reality, the court docket famous that Mumbai Police was but to
register an FIR pursuant to Section 174 CrPC inquiry.

The court docket relied on Manoj Okay. Sharma v. State of
Chhattisgarh³ (a case
having factual resemblance), whereby it was held that Section 174
CrPC has a really restricted scope. The mentioned choice additional held that
the article of Section 174 CrPC is barely to determine the obvious
reason for the loss of life. The query relating to different particulars as to how
the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted or beneath what
circumstances, is overseas to the scope and ambit of Section 174
CrPC. Section 174 CrPC is for the aim of “inquiries”
and completely distinct from an “investigation”. Thus, the
court docket held that Section 174 CrPC isn’t an investigation of a
crime.

Jurisdiction of the police to register an FIR and
examine incidents which didn’t happen in its
jurisdiction.

In this part, the court docket mentioned whether or not the Patna Police
had the jurisdiction to register the grievance when the sufferer was
residing in one other state. As per the complainant, his try from
Patna to speak to his deceased son was thwarted by the Petitioner/
Accused.

The court docket held that registration of FIR is remitted when
data on cognizable offence is obtained by the police. In
this regard, the court docket relied on Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P⁴. The court docket
noticed that there are precedents which recommend that on the stage
of investigation, it can’t be mentioned that the involved police
station doesn’t have territorial jurisdiction.

The court docket thought-about to interpret Section 177 CrPC (Ordinary
Place of Inquiry or Trial) and 178 CrPC (Place of Inquiry or
Trial). The choice in Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt of NCT of
Delhi)⁵ was relied
on, whereby it was held that Section 178 CrPC, inter alia,
supplies for a spot of enquiry or trial when it’s unsure in
which of a number of native areas an offence was dedicated or the place the
offence was dedicated partly in a single native space and partly in
one other and the place it consisted of a number of acts performed in numerous
native areas, it may very well be enquired into or tried by a court docket having
jurisdiction over any of such native areas. Hence, on the stage of
investigation, it can’t be held that the police doesn’t have
territorial jurisdiction to analyze the crime.

To talk about the jurisdictional side, when allegations of
prison breach of belief or of misappropriation are made, the court docket
relied on Asit Bhattacharjee v. Hanuman Prasad Ojha⁶. In the mentioned
choice, the court docket referred to Section 181 CrPC which supplies for
place of trial for sure offences. It was held that Section
181(4) CrPC clearly recommend that even when part of reason for motion
has arisen, the police station involved located throughout the
jurisdiction of the Justice of the Peace empowered to take cognizance will
have the jurisdiction to make investigation.

The court docket additional relied on Naresh Kavarchand Khatri v.
State of Gujarat⁷;
Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat⁸ which
adopted Satvinder Kaur. In Rasiklala Dalpatram,
the Supreme Court made it clear {that a} police officer can not
chorus from investigating a matter on territorial floor and the
challenge will be determined after conclusion of the investigation.

Regarding the allegations of prison breach of belief or
misappropriation, the court docket held that the identical have been to be
ultimately accounted for in Patna and will prima facie
point out the lawful jurisdiction of the Patna Police. In this
regard, the Supreme Court relied on Lee Kun Hee, President,
Samsung Corporation, South Korea and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Ors⁹., whereby it
was held that by way of the offences of prison breach of trusts
and misappropriation of cash, the court docket inside whose native
jurisdiction, the entire or part of consideration have been required to
be returned or accounted for, would have jurisdiction.

As per the regulation enunciated above, the court docket held that there
exists no illegality within the FIR registered by the Patna Police.

Investigation entrustment to CBI and the path on
investigation.

In reality, the FIR registered at Patna, Bihar was transferred to
the CBI with the consent of the Bihar Government. Section 6 of the
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 learn with Section 5
prescribe the requirement of consent from the involved state
authorities, earlier than entrustment of an investigation to the CBI. The
court docket held that for the reason that CBI has already registered a case and
commenced investigation on the occasion of the Bihar Government,
uncertainty and confusion have to be averted within the occasion of Mumbai
Police additionally deciding to concurrently examine the cognizable
offence, primarily based on their discovering within the inquiry continuing. Hence,
the court docket thought it match to resolve as to who ought to conduct the
investigation.

The court docket noticed that there exists a battle between the 2
state governments relating to the competency to analyze the case.
The court docket relied on Okay.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police,
CBCID, Chennai & Ors¹⁰ whereby it
was held that switch of an investigation have to be in uncommon and
distinctive circumstances to do full justice between the events and to
instil confidence within the public thoughts.

The court docket held in favour of the investigation already commenced
by CBI and noticed that it might be acceptable if the case in
Mumbai can be investigated by the mentioned company. While reaching to
such a conclusion, it was held that the court docket should attempt to make sure
that seek for the reality is undertaken by an impartial company,
not managed by any state authorities/s.

Regarding Supreme Court’s energy beneath Article 142, the court docket
relied on Monica Kumar (Dr.) and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others¹¹ whereby it
was held that the court docket’s energy beneath Article 142 to do
“complete justice” is fully of a distinct stage and a
totally different high quality. The mentioned choice additionally held that when
the court docket has seisin of a trigger or matter earlier than it, it has energy
to challenge any order or path to do “complete justice”
within the matter.

Following Monica Kumar, the court docket was of the view that
the case in hand, in its peculiar circumstances, is a deserving
case to invoke Article 142 to make sure full justice and to make sure
public confidence for a good, competent and neutral
investigation.

Key Takeaways

Briefly, beneath are the important thing takeaways from the choice:

1. Section 406 CrPC pertains to switch
   of circumstances or appeals, solely and never investigations;




2. The scope of Section 174 CrPC is
   restricted and is within the nature of an “inquiry” and never an
   “investigation”;




3. Registration of FIR is necessary when
   data of a cognizable offence in obtained. Police can not
   chorus from conducting investigation on a territorial floor.
   Moreover, in any offence of allegation of prison breach of belief
   or misappropriation, the native court docket, the place the offence was
   dedicated or any a part of the property (concerned within the offence) was
   obtained or retained or was required to be returned or accounted
   for, could be the place of trial; and




4. There is not any obstacle for train
   of Article 142 when the Supreme Court is exercising lawful
   jurisdiction. Article 142 will be invoked to make sure public
   confidence within the investigation and for the aim of rendering
   full justice in a deserving case.

Footnotes

1.
Transfer Petition (Cri) 225 of 220

2. (1978)
2 SCC 35.

3. (2016)
9 SCC 1

4. (2014)
2 SCC 1

5. (1999)
8 SCC 728

6. (2007)
5 SCC 786

7.
(2008)8 SCC 300,

8. (2010)
1 SCC 1

9. (2012)
3 SCC 132

10.
(2013) 12 SCC 480,

11.
(2008) 8 SCC 781,

The content material of this text is meant to supply a common
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation must be sought
about your particular circumstances.