S.181(4) Cr.P.C holds the key to the jurisdiction issue accosting the Sushant Case.

It reads as below:-

"Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court 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".

It is the tail-end portion which states , jurisdiction would lie within the territory where (the misappropriated) property,..............' or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person'.

In order to attract the above proviso, it has to be argued that the accused persons are alleged to have committed acts of misappropriation, including illegal fund transfer aggregating 15-17 Crores of rupees besides removing vital documents hearing property rights. These are liable to be returned or accounted for. Obvious question corollary thereto would be, 'accountable or returnable to whom and where'? Answer is obvious. To the legal heirs or successors recognised by the law. Which would drag the jurisdiction to Patna where the bereaved family of the deceased victim of the offence resides!

Million dollar question never the less outstands whether this legal angle is or isn't within the cognizance of the too many legal wizards cooking the broth who have so far dwelt only on a flimsy line, that Rhea Chakravarti had designedly distanced Sushant from the family with criminal conspiracy to pursue the whole game plan. 

Well, you can't build a massive edifice on a foundation which may not endure small load of a cottage!

SUSHANT CASE

JURISDICTION-A  MAJOR BOTTLENECK !

Territorial Jurisdiction may prove a major bottleneck in the just registered criminal  case in the mysterious death of Sushant Singh Rajput.

Actor  Sushant Singh Rajput Case got a new twist the other day, following institution of a new criminal case, against Actress Rhia Chakravarti, founded on a First Information Report lodged with the Rajiv Nagar P.S ,a Patna based police station , by Actor's  bereaved father.

The police has not only instituted a case against the said named accused under Sections 341, 342, 380, 406, 420, 306, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code., but has also despatched it's inquiring officers to Mumbai for investigation. 

The case had hitherto hovered around a hunt against the Bollywood Mafia, leaving the  media, besides ordinary onlookers, in an anxious wait for the day when the Bollywood Mafia veil might be lifted ,to the full public view.

This new case has come as a fireworks, turning popular public attention from one half baked narrative to altogether a new script, which may have the effect of washing out all that stood built in the public estimation, against the alleged Mafia angle. The supposed Mafia may thus stand acquitted clean without having to go for a trial even in people's  court, not to speak of the law court. 

Territirial Jurisdiction

When an offence has been committed at a particular place, usually the court in whose jurisdiction the crime has been committed has the jurisdiction to inquire into and try that case.

It is worth taking a bird's eye view on the Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C).

Section 177 – Only the Court under whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed  has the jurisdiction  to inquire into and try the case.

Section 178 - Where the offence has been committed in more than one place or  the p.o (place occurance) is uncertain , having been committed in several places, partly  in one local area and the rest in another area, comprising  of several acts, committed in different local areas, then such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. This particular section possibly holds the clue for the Patna Police to have taken up the cudgel in the matter . But on which factual score? That is a million dollar question which is bound to accost higher echelons.

Further noteworthy is Section 179. An act is an offence because of anything which has been done and as a consequence which has ensued, the said offence may be inquired into or tried by a court of competent jurisdiction.  Even this provision jokes promise in favour of Patna jurisdiction.

Additionally ,Section 180 deals with the place of trial when the act committed is an offence because it is related to some other offence. According to it the offence which has been committed first has to be inquired into or tried, when two acts are done in connection with each other and both are offences, by the court under whose jurisdiction either of the act has been committed. In all such provisions, the emphasis is always on the place where the offence has been committed, to find the jurisdiction.

One more section 181 also is there which outlines  conditions in case of certain offences. According to section 181(1), the trial can also be commenced where the accused is found, besides the place where the offence was committed. Section 181(1) talks about the offences, when not committed in a single place. It deals with the following cases.

Thug, or murder committed while performing the act of thug, dacoity, or dacoity with murder etc- where the offence is committed or where the accused is found.

Kidnapping or abduction of a person- the place from where the person was kidnapped/ abducted or where the person was concealed or conveyed or detained.  

Theft, extortion or robbery – the Court where the offence has been committed or where the stolen property is possessed, received or delivered, has the jurisdiction to try such a case.

Criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust- where the offence has been committed or where any part of the property which is the subject matter of the offence has been received or retained, required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused.

But the above section deals with offences when the offender is travelling, as evident from the nature of the offences as specified under this section.

Section 182 deals with offences committed by letters etc. Under this section, if any offence includes cheating, if the victim has been deceived by means of letters or telecommunication messages, it shall be looked into by the Court under whose local jurisdiction such letters or messages have been sent or received; and under the  local jurisdiction of the Court in which the property has been delivered by the person deceived or has been received by the accused person.

Sushant Case.

In the instant case it has been alleged that the accused had designedly  committed acts which caused Sushant's getting cut off from his Patna based family. With intent to gaining full control over Sushant , the main accused in concert with her family, practised drug abuse on the victim and completely impoverished him through illegal fund transfers of 15-17 Crores , from Sushant's bank accounts.

As of now, only a hairline thread has been conjured up to address the jurisdiction issue. It is a factual assertion  that, the whole criminal act was founded on the illegal restraint applied on  Sushant's person which could not have been made possible without attaining his distancing from his Patna based near and dear ones. It is this very component of alleged offence which has been conceived in the whole frame of the new prosecution narrative which may or may not sustain the jurisdiction issue.