With alleged Suicide by Sushant Singh Rajput many discussions and debates and view point is expressed by media and other platforms on Power of Central Government to transfer the case to CBI when State Police fails to investigate collect evidence for free and fair trial in the matter. Let us discuss various aspects of this issue in its legal conspectus.
Role and Rights of Accused in investigation
Union of India and Anr. v. W.N Chadha (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260, is a judgment which states that the accused has no right to participate in the investigation till process is issued to him, provided there is strict compliance of the requirements of fair investigation Likewise, the judgments in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalongappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736, Prabha Mathur and Anr. v. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 469, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 and Dinubhai Bhogabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 626, which state that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation, has very little to do with the precise question before us. All these judgments are, therefore, distinguishable.
Duty of Police to file F.I.R
In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh,the question before the Supreme Court was whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same.
It was held that:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) 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.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Suicide provision is incorporated in Section 306 of Indian Penal Code,1860
306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 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.
(2) The report shall be signed by such police officer and other persons, or by so many of them as concur therein, and shall be forthwith forwarded to the District Magistrate or the Sub- divisional Magistrate.
(i) the case involves suicide by a woman within seven years of her marriage; or
(ii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage in any circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person committed an offence in relation to such woman; or
(iii) the case relates to the death of a woman within seven years of her marriage and any relative of the woman has made a request in this behalf; or
(iv) there is any doubt regarding the cause of death; or
(v) the police officer for any other reason considers it expedient so to do, he shall. subject to such rules as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, forward the body, with a view to its being examined, to the nearest Civil Surgeon, or other qualified medical man appointed in this behalf by the State Government, if the state of the weather and the distance admit of its being so forwarded without risk of such putrefaction on the road as would render such examination useless.
(4) The following Magistrates are empowered to hold inquests, namely, any District Magistrate or Sub- divisional Magistrate and any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government or the District Magistrate.
Guidelines issued by Madras High Court for investigation under S 174 of Cr.P.C Manohari vs The District Superintendent of Police, CRL.OP (MD).Nos.15515 of 2017 and 11764 of 2017 &11802 of 2018 CRL.OP (MD).Nos.15515 of 2017 and 11764 of 2017 &11802 of 2018 The Court framed following Guidelines:
a)The Police on receipt of an information about the suspicious death shall registered an F.I.R under Section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code and thereafter he can proceed to the scene of occurrence and prepare an Inquest Report.
b)When a Police Officer receives an information to the effect that the deceased is lying in a serious condition, he can rush to the scene of occurrence, in order to see if he can save the victim and if in case the victim does not survive he can proceed to prepare the Inquest Report in accordance with Section 174(1) of Cr.P.C, and thereafter register an F.I.R under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. The Inquest Report has to describe the wounds, fractures, bruises and other marks of injuries as are found on the dead body and state in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument [if any], such marks appear to have been inflicted.
c)The Police Officer shall also prepare a Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence.
d)The Inquest Report and the Rough Sketch shall be prepared in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood.
e)The object of the Inquest Proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under unnatural circumstances or an unnatural death and if so, what is the cause of death. The Inquest Report need not contain details such as how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted and these facts are not within the scope of Inquest Proceedings and they fall within the scope of the investigation to be conducted by the Police.
f)immediately after the preparation of the Inquest Report in accordance with Section 174(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the Police shall submit the same to the Executive Magistrate under Section 174(2) in order to enable the Executive Magistrate to hold an independent inquest as contemplated under Section 174(4) of Criminal Procedure Code.
g)The Executive Magistrate on completion of the inquest shall submit a report to the Police and such report shall form part of the investigation conducted by the Police and the Police shall collect details from such report and conduct the investigation accordingly.
h)The power of the Police to investigate is in no way stopped or curtailed or interfered with by the inquest held by the Executive Magistrate and the freedom of the Police to proceed with the investigation will be left untouched.
i)The Police on the conclusion of the investigation shall file a Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C only before the jurisdictional Magistrate and not before the Executive Magistrate. This will apply, in both cases, whether the Final Report is a positive report or is a Closure Report.
j)If in case the Police proceeds to file a Closure Report, the victim shall be entitled to be served with a R.C.S notice in order to enable him to file a protest Petition before the concerned Magistrate.
k)On such protest Petition being filed, the concerned Judicial Magistrate shall act in accordance with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi .Vs. Irshad Ali, reported in [2013 (5) SCC 762].
Court further held , “It is made clear that in all future cases where the F.I.R is registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, the above procedure shall be scrupulously followed. A copy of this order may be sent to the Director General of Police, Chennai and also to the Inspector General of Police in the various Zones in order to enable them to sensitize the Police and give necessary instructions with regard to the manner in which the Police will have to proceed in all cases where an FIR is registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.”
Section 306 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
306. Tender of pardon to accomplice.
(1) With a view to obtaining the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence to which this section applies, the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate at any stage of the investigation or inquiry into, or the trial of, the offence, and the Magistrate of the first class inquiring into or trying the offence, at any stage of the inquiry or trial, may tender a pardon to such person on condition of his making a full and true dis- closure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor, in the commission thereof.
(2) This section applies to-
(a) any offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session or by the Court of a Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952 );
(b) any offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or with a more severe sentence.
(3) Every Magistrate who tenders a pardon under sub- section (1) shall record-
(a) his reasons for so doing;
(b) whether the tender was or was not accepted by the person to whom it was made, and shall, on application made by the accused, furnish him with a copy of such record free of cost.
(4) Every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub- section (1)-
(a) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any;
(b) shall, unless he is already on bail, be detained in custody until the termination of the trial.
(5) Where a person has, accepted a tender of pardon made under sub- section (1) and has been examined under sub- section (4), the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence shall, without making any further inquiry in the case,-
(a) commit it for trial-
(i) to the Court of Session if the, offence is triable exclusively by that Court or if the Magistrate taking cognizance is the Chief Judicial Magistrate;
(ii) to a Court of Special Judge appointed under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (46 of 1952 ), if the offence is triable exclusively by that Court;
(b) in any other case, make over the case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who shall try the case himself.
At any time after commitment, but before judgement is passed, the Court to which the commitment is made may with the view of obtaining on the trial the evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in, or privy to, any such offence, tender, or order the committing Magistrate or the District Magistrate to tender, a pardon on the same condition to such person. The power conferred on the Magistrate to tender pardon, under Sections 306 and 307 Cr.P.C, is to obtain the evidence of an accomplice so as to facilitate conviction of others. A wide power has been conferred on the Magistrate to tender a conditional pardon to a particular person with a view to obtaining the evidence of that person in support of the charge against the other accused therein. Under sub-section (3) of S. 306, the Court is expected to record its reasons for tendering such pardon, and should further record the factum of acceptance of the person to whom pardon was tendered, albeit with conditions. The necessity to examine an accomplice depends upon the facts of each case, and no hard and fast rule can be prescribed therefor. Adequacy or otherwise of the evidence to bring home the guilt to the accused affords a reasonable ground so as to conclude whether the discretion conferred on the Court can be exercised or not, and affords a reason to support a judicious exercise of the discretion.
Jurisdiction and Stare Decisis
The fact or facts upon which the jurisdiction of an authority depends is a “jurisdictional fact” the existence of which is the sine qua non, or the condition precedent, to the assumption of jurisdiction by the authority.
Pardon to Accuse when in case of Section 306?
The power of tendering pardon was considered in the decision reported in A.J. Peris v. State of Madras (AIR 1954 SC 616). In the decision reported in Phulan Shah v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2002 Crl.L.J. 1520), it was held as follows:
“9. In this case, pardon was granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 306 Cr.P.C. The object of tendering pardon as contained in Section 306 Cr.P.C.is with a view to obtaining evidence of any person supposed to have been directly or indirectly concerned in or privy to an offence for making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence and to every other person concerned, whether as principal or abettor in the commission thereof.reof.
Jurisdiction and Constitution Right to LifeArticle 21 in The Constitution of India 1949
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law
Maneka Gandhi’s case has laid down that personal liberty cannot be cut out or cut down without fair legal procedure.
Article 32 in The Constitution of India 1949
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part
(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause ( 1 ) and ( 2 ), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause ( 2 )
(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution
Article 32 of the Constitution is also contained in Part III of the Constitution, which enumerates the fundamental rights and not alongside other articles of the Constitution which define the general jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Thus, being a fundamental right itself, it is the duty of this Court to ensure that no fundamental right is contravened or abridged by any statutory or constitutional provision. Moreover, it is also plain from the expression “in the nature of” employed in clause (2) of Article 32 that the power conferred by the said clause is in the widest terms and is not confined to issuing the high prerogative writs specified in the said clause but includes within its ambit the power to issue any directions or orders or writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the fundamental rights. Therefore, even when the conditions for issue of any of these writs are not fulfilled, this Court would not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizen who has come before it for judicial redress (per P.N. Bhagwati, J. in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 161)
Jurisdiction and Crime
Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one State High Court to another State High Court or from a Court subordinate to another State High Court.
Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code
173. Preventing service of summons or other proceeding, or preventing publication thereof.—Whoever in any manner intentionally prevents the serving on himself, or on any other person, of any summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order, or intentionally prevents the lawful affixing to any place of any such summons, notice or order, or intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which it is lawfully affixed, or intentionally prevents the lawful making of any proclamation, under the authority of any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to direct such proclamation to be made, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent, or to produce a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
CBI and Jurisdiction: Its origin
The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) which was set up in 1941 by the Government of India. The functions of the SPE then were to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with the War & Supply Department of India during World War II. Even after the end of the War, the need for a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by Central Government employees was felt. The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was therefore brought into force in 1946. The CBI’s power to investigate cases is derived from this Act.
Relevant Provisions of DSPE Act
[6. Consent of State Government to exercise of powers and jurisdiction.—Nothing contained in section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in [a State, not being a Union territory or railway area], without the consent of the Government of that State.] [6A. Approval of Central Government to conduct, inquiry or investigation.— (1) The Delhi Special Police Establishment shall not conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988) except with the previous approval of the Central Government where such allegation relates to— (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above; and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by that Government. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any gratification other than legal remuneration referred to in clause (c) of the Explanation to section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)].
Courts View and Constitution
Writ Petitions seeking transfer of investigation from the State Agencies to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, is by no means uncommon in the High Courts in this country. Some, if not most of such cases in due course travel to this Court also, where, issues touching the powers of the High Courts and at times the power of this Court to direct such transfers are raised by the parties. The jurisdictional aspect is, however, no longer res integra ( Untouched) , the same having been answered authoritatively by a Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 571.
Supreme Court summed up the conclusions in the following words:
“68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the Constitutional Scheme, we conclude as follows:
(i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any Constitutional or Statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
(ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said Article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.
(iii) In view of the constitutional scheme and the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 32 and on the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution the power of judicial review being an integral part of the basic structure of the Constitution, no Act of Parliament can exclude or curtail the powers of the Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights. As a matter of fact, such a power is essential to give practicable content to the objectives of the Constitution embodied in Part III and other parts of the Constitution. Moreover, in a federal constitution, the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislature involves limitation on legislative powers and, therefore, this requires an authority other than the Parliament to ascertain whether such limitations are transgressed. Judicial review acts as the final arbiter not only to give effect to the distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament and the State Legislatures, it is also necessary to show any transgression by each entity. Therefore, to borrow the words of Lord Steyn, judicial review is justified by combination of “the principles of separation of powers, rule of law, the principle of constitutionality and the reach of judicial review”.
(iv) If the federal structure is violated by any legislative action, the Constitution takes care to protect the federal structure by ensuring that Courts act as guardians and interpreters of the Constitution and provide remedy under Articles 32 and 226, whenever there is an attempted violation. In the circumstances, any direction by the Supreme Court or the High Court in exercise of power under Article 32 or 226 to uphold the Constitution and maintain the rule of law cannot be termed as violating the federal structure.
(v) Restriction on the Parliament by the Constitution and restriction on the Executive by the Parliament under an enactment, do not amount to restriction on the power of the Judiciary under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
(vi) If in terms of Entry 2 of List II of The Seventh Schedule on the one hand and Entry 2A and Entry 80 of List I on the other, an investigation by another agency is permissible subject to grant of consent by the State concerned, there is no reason as to why, in an exceptional situation, court would be precluded from exercising the same power which the Union could exercise in terms of the provisions of the Statute. In our opinion, exercise of such power by the constitutional courts would not violate the doctrine of separation of powers. In fact, if in such a situation the court fails to grant relief, it would be failing in its constitutional duty.
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure.
69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly” (emphasis supplied)
Also see Central Bureau of Investigation vs Madan Gopal Mitra on 15 May, 2015. In The Matter of State Of West Bengal Vs The Committee For Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran, D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal
When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure.
In Para 45-46 Supreme Court observed that:
45.In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of
civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
46.Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said Articles requires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a direction to the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extra-ordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.
Article 21 Gives Right to Life and to protect the same Jurisdiction cannot be a hurdle. Any crime is crime against society and its duty of every government department to investigate and punish to stop its reoccurrence. Section 6 cannot be incumbent or mandatory for rendering justice.