Inquest Inquiry and Investigation & FIR stuck at the crossroads of
Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Prologue
There has been a lot of clutter, hysteria and sounds similar to that of falling utensils surrounding the case of Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors[1] and the unfortunate and untimely death of our beloved actor (late) Shri Sushant Singh Rajput. But since the author here is neither as learned as our panellists nor is quick-to-take-action like the law enforcement authority, conscious attempt was made not to further create any clutter and chaos through this article. The pertinent points of law have been highlighted here, which could rather have been discussed by our panellists and also set into motion by the concerned law enforcement authority. There is a sigh of relief that the Judgment in the case of Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors (hereinafter “Rhea Chakraborty case”) has finally put the provisions of the criminal code into action.
Questions for discussion
Such has been the hush-hush on the part of the law enforcement authority (alternatively “the Police”) since the incident came to light, it has been difficult to make-out the head and tail of the case. The primary questions are:
firstly, in spite of the incident coming to light and being reported by the kith and kin of the deceased, why was no FIR registered by the concerned police having territorial jurisdiction even after 65 days of the first reporting?;
secondly, why is that there is such delay to put the forensic analysis on record regarding the cause of death?;
thirdly, as evident to everyone’s eye, why has the crime scene become a walk-in-the-park in spite of the concerned police guarding the crime scene?
While the third question will not be discussed in this article for it is res ipsa loquitur and hoped that erring officials and their stakeholders, if any, will be put to task; this article will deal with non-registration of an FIR in spite of all ‘information’ prima facie available to the concerned police.
Unfolding of the plot
The petition by Rhea Chakraborty was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for transfer of the FIR No. 241 of 2020 dated 25th July 2020 from the jurisdiction of the Patna police to that of the Mumbai police where the crime appears to have occurred, apparently on 14th June 2020. (It is to be noted that since the 14th June to the 25th of July no FIR was filed by the Mumbai police having jurisdiction and subsequently the FIR was registered in Patna, and no forensic analysis or post-mortem report was put on record.) Only an inquest inquiry was reported under Section 174 of the CrPC. The father of the deceased was then forced to file the said FIR with the Patna police on reasonable apprehensions of cover-up and manipulation and/or removal and tampering of evidence by the concerned authority engaged in the inquest inquiry. Parallel to the legal developments, an active and (overenthusiastic) investigative journalism claims to have exposed the apparent lackadaisical attitude of the concerned police in handling the affairs of this case. They are evident from the fact that a few people were found stepping into the crime scene and suspiciously removing objects and items in opaque bags. Nevertheless, no FIR was filed and no post-mortem report ever featured in any discussion, be it judicial or extra-judicial. In the backdrop of the taint already acquired by the case, the FIR was registered by the Patna police when information of cognizable nature was brought to their notice. It was against this FIR that Rhea Chakraborty and the State of Maharashtra argued tooth and nail to get the investigation transferred to the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai police and tried to prevent the transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter “the CBI”).
Arguments of the Parties
The deceased’s father had lodged the FIR in Patna on charges of wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, theft in a dwelling house, criminal breach of trust, abetment of suicide, criminal intimidation and for criminal conspiracy. The contentions of Rhea Chakraborty and State of Maharashtra appeared to dangle on the one and only point of jurisdiction. It was argued by the Petitioners 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. It was submitted that courts in Bihar did not have lawful jurisdiction in entertaining the complaint and Bihar police lacked jurisdiction to investigate the case and transfer of the investigation to the CBI on Bihar Government’s consent, would not amount to a lawful consent of the State government. 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.
It was further argued by the State of Maharashtra that an accidental death report (ADR) was filed and the inquest inquiry was underway and statements of 56 people were, post-mortem report and Forensic reports were collected. In spite of the steps taken, and as submitted by the Mumbai Police, they still needed time to file an FIR if the inquest inquiry warranted filing of an FIR for a cognisable offence. (Here one must note that strangely the Forensic Reports and the post-mortem report which could have established the cause of death and where the speculations could have been put to rest then and there, were neither found to be discussed either on judicial forums or extra-judicial forums. Furthermore, one should also wonder what caused the concerned authority from not filing an FIR even after 65 days of investigation and with the medical reports in hand.)
Contrary to the contentions of lack of jurisdiction, the State of Bihar and Ors. were able to convince the court that the Complaint as brought before the Patna Police, disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore, it was incumbent for the Patna Police to register the FIR and proceed with the investigation. It was supported with the fact that the alleged offences had consequential distant effect to the place where the deceased’s legal heirs resided and this as per the law, granted jurisdiction to the Patna police to take cognizance of the offence. It was submitted that the Mumbai Police was conducting the inquiry 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 deceased’s father.
The Solicitor General of India representing the Union of India contended that the Mumbai Police had not registered any FIR and was conducting only a limited inquiry and in the backdrop of the investigation already mired in controversies warranted a transfer of the matter to the CBI.
Observations of the Court
While the court held that there was no wrong doing apparent on the part of the Mumbai Police based on the ‘records’ produced before itself, but observed that the obstruction of Bihar Police could have been avoided. It was cleared that under the federal design envisaged by the Constitution, Police is a state subject under List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and therefore an investigation of a crime should normally be undertaken by the concerned state’s police, where the case is registered. The court acknowledged that 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.’ It was noted by this court that Rhea Chakraborty initially reposed confidence in the Mumbai Police but had herself pleaded for investigation of the case by the CBI.
Involvement of the CBI
The Court rightly pointed out that transfer of investigation to the CBI cannot be a routine occurrence but should be in exceptional circumstances. By reiterating the established position in Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India[2] the court held that induction of the Central Agency is practiced to retain ‘public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies’. The court also upheld the consistent view that it is not for the accused to forum-shop the investigating agency and thereby dismissed the plea of the petitioner on choosing her investigating agency. It is striking to note that the court in the instant case did not rule out malicious intentions and said that ‘it must be determined whether the unnatural death was the result of some criminal acts’.
The court formulated four points of law, being:
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? 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?
The above questions on points b) and c) are elaborated herewith below in this article.
With regards to transfer of power under Section 406 of CrPC the Court noted that Section 406 CrPC empowers the Supreme Court to transfer cases and appeals. The scope of exercise of 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. The court concluded this point holding that only cases and appeals (not investigation) can be transferred.
Scope of Proceedings under section 174 CrPC
Before we take a look at the court’s opinion on Section 174, let us have a look at the relevant provision, which has been reproduced hereasunder:
Section 174 speaks when the Police must enquire and report on suicide, etc. In common parlance the enquiries under this section are often referred to as inquest inquires.
174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.
(1) When the officer in charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and, unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub- divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two' or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
The court, while drawing the line between inquest inquiry and investigation, held that 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. They are not in the nature of investigation, undertaken after filing of FIR under Section 154 CrPC. The court took cognisance of the fact that no FIR was registered in Mumbai and the Mumbai Police did not consider the matter suspecting a commission of a cognizable offence under Section 175 (2) of the CrPC and also did not proceed with registration of a FIR under section 154 of CrPC and did not refer the matter to the nearest magistrate having jurisdiction.
Drawing reference to Manoj K Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh[3] it was explained that the proceedings under Section 174 of CrPC have a very limited scope and the object of such proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died an unnatural death and if so, the cause of such a death. Thus, conducting an investigation to ascertain if the deceased died due to assault by another person is foreign to the ambit and scope of the said section. The procedure under Section 174 is hence for discovering the cause of death only and is entirely distinct from an investigation under Section 157 of the Code.
The Court held that in the instant case Mumbai Police had stretched the purview of Section 174 without drawing any FIR and also took note that no investigation is being carried out to determine probability of a commission of a cognizable offence. And most importantly, the Court observed that no evidence of such investigation under Section 157 has yet been conducted by the Mumbai Police.
Jurisdiction of Patna Police to Register Complaint
On this issue it was clearly held that it was on the Patna Police to register an FIR as commission of a cognizable offence was disclosed, albeit the transaction occurred in Mumbai. The established law per Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP[4] was relied on: a registration of an FIR is mandatory when information of cognizable offence is received by the police. It was further supported by the established law that a concerned police station cannot claim ‘lacking territorial jurisdiction’ to institute an FIR. Citing the law laid down the Lalita Kumari case and a plethora of other cases, the court reiterated the law[5] that 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. (Note: The silence on the part of the Mumbai Police after having conducted an inquest inquiry for 65 days must be borne in mind.)
This point was further substantiated by the fact that allegations of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money are the events which has made an effect to the deceased’s father in Patna. This, as the court held, prima facie armed the Patna Police with lawful jurisdiction.
Thus, the question of Patna of Police not having jurisdiction was put to rest by the Court, stating that Patna Police ‘committed no illegality in registering the complaint’ and their stage of investigation ‘they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai Police.’ And the Bihar Police via 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’.
Analysis of the events and the case
It must be noted that the ongoing investigation was not transferred to the CBI due to the whims of the Hon’ble Court but as per the procedure laid down by the law. It was rightly observed that the CBI cannot conduct an investigation without the consent of a State. But it was also held that the said provision cannot be the only determining factor in transfer of cases to the CBI. Even a constitutional court, apart from the law laid down in Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, can exercise its writ jurisdiction and special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in ‘exceptional situation’ while deciding the question of transfer of an investigation to the CBI. This would not amount to infringement of the ‘doctrine of separation of powers’ and the federal structure. This court reiterated that such a transfer shall be under exceptional circumstances when there is a question of integrity and unfair investigation on conduct of the Police(s), and it shall be done to instil confidence in the public mind.
In the instant case the transfer of the investigation by the CBI was deemed lawful. This is because Mumbai Police had taken no step in registration of an FIR and on the other hand counsel of the deceased’s father had played a master stroke by proving to the court that the alleged crime had far reaching effect to Patna thereby giving rise to cause of action beyond territorial limits of the Mumbai Police. This was supported with the argument that as per the law laid down in the Lalita Kumari case registration of an FIR is mandatory when there is an information disclosed on a commission of a cognizable offence. The court while upholding the legality of Patna Police’s registration of the FIR and the Bihar Government’s consent in transferring the case to the CBI, also held that Bombay Police had territoriality to register the FIR and the Maharashtra Government could also consent to transfer the case to CBI. But the fact that the Mumbai Police did not register an FIR, is now a different matter altogether and why this was not done, is a point for their post-match-analysis.
The very question of whether a police officer has a discretion to conduct an inquest (preliminary inquiry) before registration of an FIR was put to rest in the judgment of Lalita Kumari. Let us quickly have a look at the relevant provisions regarding filing of FIR in cognizable cases.
“154. Information in cognizable cases.
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
To be read with,
156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case.
(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.
And to be further read with,
157. Procedure for investigation:
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:…..”
A bare perusal of the above provisions simply import an understanding that a police officer: i) shall put down in writing i.e. register an FIR when information of a commission of a cognizable offence has been informed to him; ii) can immediately set course to investigate a commission of a cognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate, and; iii) can send a report to the Magistrate and then proceed to the spot for investigation.
However, the above steps were not followed by the Mumbai Police. They had chosen the path of Section 174 i.e. inquest inquiry, which as per law is for only ascertaining the cause of death. It is indeed true and as argued on behalf of the Mumbai Police that no time-frame has been prescribed by the law in completing an inquest inquiry. But, considering this action of the Mumbai Police was bona fide, and without malice as alleged, one should question that does it really take more than 65 days to put on record, the cause of death? As per the law laid down such a body shall be sent for post mortem. This was done so and the body of the deceased was sent to the Cooper Hospital in Mumbai. The next question is, why has this post-mortem report and other forensic analysis not appear in judicial discussions? If the cause of death as per medical reports is indeed suicide, then the allegations of cover-up and evidence tampering against Mumbai Police should not then hold water. But is for the Mumbai Police to put on record and aver that the cause of death as per their inquest inquiry was suicide. Such a silence on this part has raised credible suspicion in the nature of investigation and has rightly warranted the interference of the Court and perhaps the public-spirited non-judicial forums.
Patna police on the other hand, cannot be held guilty of violating the federal principles by registering an FIR and then proceeding with the investigation. The situation would have been different if the Mumbai Police had lodged an FIR. Had that been so, the law laid down in the recent case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India[6] would have then stepped in to restrain the Patna Police from proceeding with an FIR; where details of transactions of a crime were already registered in a previous FIR. Thus, the current scenario would have been different if it was a case of two FIRs narrating events forming part of the same transaction.
Further, one must also question as to why the Mumbai Police chose an inquest inquiry and why was it even assumed that it was a case of suicide? As held by the court in this Rhea Chakraborty case, that an inquest inquiry can lead to filing of FIR if it appears to the police that there has been a commission of a cognizable offence. In spite of days passing by there was no FIR filed by the Mumbai Police. This silence on the non-discussion of the post-mortem report may lead to a presumption that this was a case of suicide, but strangely there has been no official statement.
The judgment in the Lalita Kumari case is a code in itself when it comes to registration of FIRs. Here the court held that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the police is informed about a commission of a cognizable offence and the criminal law be set into motion. Also, there is no discretion on the part of the police officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The court in the said case referred to State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr.[7] and took cognizance of the fact that upon the instructions given by the then Chief Minister to a District Collector, no registration of FIR was recorded as per complaints from aggrieved farmers. Therefore, earlier precedents teach us that possibilities of the bureaucracy the Executive meddling in affairs of police investigations cannot be ruled out so easily. Most importantly, the court had noted the serious repercussions of erasing and tampering of evidence as a result of delay in filing of FIRs. In lieu of these observations, on should also question the delay in filing of FIR’s in the Rhea Chakraborty case.
Epilogue
Thus, in the instant case, neither an FIR was lodged after days of an inquest inquiry nor a report sent to the nearest Magistrate. The forensic reports and the post-mortem report which can ascertain the cause of death was also not found to be a part of discussions. Even with the medical reports, reportedly, the Mumbai Police still needed more time to commence an investigation. Furthermore, the media-reporting of walk-in-the-park of the crime scene has further raised many brows. As held by the Court, the Patna Police’s action of handing over the investigation to CBI was also deemed legal. But this court also held that Writ Courts should sparingly use such inherent powers only when there is a question of integrity of an investigation.
To conclude on the point of Section 174, Mumbai Police had initiated an inquest inquiry under the said section suspecting commission of suicide. As per this section there are just four possibilities, namely: a person has committed suicide or has been killed by an animal or machinery or by an accident or has died under mysterious circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence. At least at this point it can be reasonable presumed that the deceased was not killed by an animal or a machinery. It therefore leaves two options for the casue of death i.e. either by suicide or killed by some other person. Now, the inquiry u/s 174 also has the inherent objective of ascertaining the cause of death. This can be concluded by the post-mortem and the medical/forensic analysis. This can definitely conclude the cause of death, whether by suicide or killed by a person. However, one must question why such medical records are not being put on record. Should this silence amount to assumption that there has actually been a case of culpable homicide or murder, is a question each one may ask oneself. It is further strange that even after days of inquest inquiry and with the medical records, the concerned Police could not come to the conclusion of cause of death.
The judgment in this Rhea Chakraborty case must be credited for it is well-balanced in terms of determining the actions of the parties and has clearly reiterated the established law on inquest inquiries vs investigation and the law on registering FIRs. It further reiterated that it is not for an accused to forum-shop a place/agency for an investigation as per her convenience. In spite of a well-reasoned judgment; it has however been subjected to battering rams from a few sections of the fraternity, with commentaries that the Court chose to speak the motto of the Government and that there has been a breach of federal structure by allowing the transfer of the investigation to the CBI from the Mumbai Police.
Amidst the hue & cry and wailings amongst the panellists speaking for and against the entire transactions, there has not been a single non-judicial panel discussion on the law point. It was hoped that the Lalita Kumari judgment which clearly had laid down the law on registration of FIRs, inquiries and/or investigations, would feature in some discussions amongst the panellists, be the ‘left, right & centre’ or the ‘nation wants to know’ debates. But at the same time the media houses must be credited, to that extent, for their investigative journalism and it appears that a private media body seems to have done more investigation and fact-finding than our concerned law enforcement authority. One may despise a cringe-worthy media coverage of a suspected cringe-worthy cover-up, but the truth remains unscathed even in cases of layered cover-ups and it is for a seeker of truth to unravel the truth.
धर्मं परमं वदन्ति ।
[1] Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors (Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.225 of 2020, Supreme Court of India)
[2] Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India 2020 SCC Online SC 462
[3] Manoj K Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2016) 9 SCC 1
[4] Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
[5] ibid
[6] ibid
[7] State of Maharashtra v. Sarangdharsingh Shivdassingh Chavan & Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 577
