Possibility Of Deterioration Of Sushant's Mental Health After His Sisters' Conspiracy To Fabricate Medical Prescription Being Probed: Mumbai Police Tells Bombay High Court

Rejecting the claim of the petitioners that the impugned FIR is a counter blast by respondent no.2 (Rhea) to the FIR filed by father of petitioners which is being investigated by CBI, Mumbai police has contended-

"The impugned FIR dated September 7, 2020 after its registration was forthwith transferred to CBI for investigation. Mumbai police is neither carrying out investigation under the impugned FIR, nor have taken any coercive steps against the petitioners."

It is further alleged-

"I say that the petitioners are also indirectly trying to seek review of the observations by the Supreme Court finding the earlier inquiry by the Mumbai police satisfactory, after perusing the entire material collected by them and placed on record in sealed cover. Such an attempt is being made by various false and unsubstantiated allegations, which are vehemently denied."

While the FIR registered by Mumbai police is for offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 465, 466, 468, 474, 306, 120 B and 34 of IPC read with sections 8 (1), 21, 22 A and 29 of NDPS Act. The earlier FIR registered in the State of Bihar under sections 306, 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 506 and 120B of IPC, is neither against the same accused persons nor alleging same version or conspiracy, Mumbai police has argued. The 20-page affidavit states-

"Therefore the registration of the impugned FIR against the accused petitioners is not violated of fundamental rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. As per provisions of section 154 of CrPC and the legal position well settled in this regard by the apex court, the police officer was duty bound to record the FIR on receipt of information of commission of cognizable offence, and there was no embargo on such registration as claimed by the petitioners or otherwise."

The respondents have relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court on issues relevant to the case-

(i) Kari Choudary Vs Sitadevi and ors (2002)

(ii) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs Central Bureau of Investigation and ors (2013).

(iii) TT Anthony Vs State of Kerala (2001). Upkar Singh Vs Ved Prakash (2004).

The affidavit also states-

"There is no infirmity in registering the impugned FIR on disclosing the commission of cognizable offence. On the contrary it was statutory obligation under section 154 of CrPC to register the impugned FIR.

The contentions of the petitioners or CBI deprecating the registration of the impugned FIR are completely devoid of merits. Police officer or State cannot be faulted for abiding by the aforesaid unambiguous directions of the apex court."

Asserting the difference between the two FIRs, Mumbai police contends that although both FIRs are on the death of Sushant Singh Rajput but the conspiracy alleged and the version alleged therein are totally different.

In its affidavit, CBI questioned Mumbai police's decision to register FIR in the case instead of forwarding Rhea Chakraborty's complaint to them pointing to the Supreme Court's order directing transfer of investigation in FIR registered at Patna by Sushant Singh Rajput's father to CBI.

Mumbai police responded to the same-

"Apparently the Supreme Court had in its wisdom not only provided for registration of any other FIR at Mumbai, but also directed CBI to investigate such a new case on the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, so that the latter case too gets investigated by CBI without requiring consent from the State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, after its registration the impugned FIR was forthwith transferred to CBI for investigation without taking any coercive steps and without investigating the allegations levelled in the FIR."