Thread by @manuvichar

The reasoning of the SC in holding that Bihar had jurisdiction to register FIR in #SushantSingRajputDeathCase is disappointing. Firstly, the Court ought not to have gone into that issue after holding that Rhea's petition under Sec 406 CrPC to transfer FIR was not maintainable.

https://twitter.com/LiveLawIndia/status/1296042672843419648

2. The Court says police can and should register FIR on receiving information about cognizable offence, regardless of territorial jurisdiction. True. But the power to investigate is with the police officer having jurisdiction. So such FIR registered without jurisdiction to be...

3... transferred to police station having jurisdiction. That's clear from Sec 156/157 CrPC .This aspect not discussed.

4. To hold that Bihar has jurisdiction, Court refers to the fact that the Patna FIR has allegations of criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds...

5...and refers to Sec 181(4) CrPC to say that a place where the money "was required to be returned or accounted for" has jurisdiction. On this basis, Court holds Patna has jurisdiction.

6. So does this mean that Bihar FIR only relates to allegations of funds misappropriation?

7. Does the Court reasoning mean that the FIR in Patna, which was subsequently transferred to CBI, can only relate to criminal breach of trust and misappropriation? Judgment leaves a big gap there.

8. That the place of commission of crime has justification is the normal rule (Sec 177 CrPC). Applying this, Mumbai, the place of Sushant's death, has ordinary jurisdiction. Judgement does not explain how Bihar FIR can oust Mumbai vis a vis Sushant's death case.

9. CBI investigation is ordered in exceptional circumstances when Court finds police probe unsatisfactory. Here court does not say that Mumbai Police is at fault. In fact, court even says there is nothing to show wrong doing by @MumbaiPolice. Without any such adverse finding...

10...Court bars Mumbai Police from registering any FIR in future over #SushantSingRajputDeathCase. To make up for the lacunae of reasoning, court employs empty rhetoric like CBI probe is necessary for ensuring "public confidence". Article 142 is invoked in a transfer petition..

11...which is found to be not maintainable. Astonishing.

12. The order resembles the approach in Ayodhya case - Deliver a settlement award in the guise of a judgement, with shoddy legal reasoning, appealing to majority sentiments, and which is welcomed by central executive.