The order was passed by a single bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy who held that the Bihar Police committed no illegality in registering an FIR on the basis of a complaint made by Sushant Singh’s father, which disclosed commission of a cognizable offence.
While holding thus, the Top Court reiterated that a police officer cannot refrain from investigating a matter merely on “territorial grounds” and this issue can be decided after conclusion of the investigation.
“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,” it held. The bench referred to the oft-quoted precedent Lalitakumari vs State of UP in this regard.
This position of law was settled by the Top Court in Satvinder Kaur v. GNCTD, (1999) 8 SCC 728, and recently affirmed in Rasiklala Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (2010) 1 SCC 1, wherein it observed,
“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.”
Patna Police Had Jurisdiction Under Section 181 CrPC
The Bihar police had registered FIR under Sections 341(wrongful restraint), 342(wrongful confinement), 380(theft in dwelling house), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420(cheating), 306(abetment of suicide), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
The Court held that the Patna Police had “lawful jurisdiction” to register the FIR as the complaint lodged by the actor’s father contained allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money.
The Court clarified that when allegations relate to commission of the above mentioned offences, the same can be inquired into by any Court, in terms of Section 181 of CrPC, 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”.
In other words, the Court held that culpability is relatable even to the place at which consideration is required to be returned or accounted for(Referring to Lee Kun Hee, President, Samsung Corporation, South Korea & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2012) 3 SCC 132).
“…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”, the Court observed in this regard.
In this backdrop the Court held,
“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.”
