Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ravindra Bhat, Dipankar Datta, JJ.
Supriya Jain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana and Anr. – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3662 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 397 and 482 – Quashing of criminal proceeding – It is no part of business of any of courts to ascertain what outcome of trial could be, conviction or acquittal of accused – Small window that law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at allegations in FIR and materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it – Unless prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in abuse of process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. (Para 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust, cheating, criminal intimidation and conspiracy – It is not one of those rare cases where uncontroverted allegations appearing from materials on record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by petitioner – Conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from offence to do which conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be subject-matter of a separate charge – Charges have been framed and accused are awaiting trial – Involvement of petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial – Impugned judgment and order of High Court dismissing petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., upheld – Trial court may proceed with trial – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 17, 18, 19 and 24)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 180 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 162 – False statement on oath or affirmation – Section 180 of IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making statement to sign – That is not the case here – Since deponent has not been heard by Court, Court do not propose to take the issue further but warn him to be cautious in future – If any charge thereunder by any separate order has been framed against petitioner, she will be at liberty to pursue her remedy in accordance with law. (Paras 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
FIR stems from allegations levelled by second respondent of she being allured by principal accused (who happens to be the sister of the petitioner) to part with Rs. 45 lakh in all (paid partly in cash and partly by RTGS) for the purpose of establishment of a Pharma company which would be engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines. Mainly, allegations of cheating and of fraud practiced on her have been levelled by the second respondent against principal accused, her husband and various other co-accused. High Court by its impugned judgment and order declined interference resulting in dismissal of proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded by the Registry to Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh not for the purpose of initiating any action adverse to the interest of the deponent of reply affidavit but for the purpose of ensuring that police officers at all levels are made aware of legal provisions and the impact that ignorance of legal provisions could have on pending criminal proceedings adversely affecting rights of accused, so that there is no recurrence of similar such incident.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Based on a complaint lodged by the second respondent, Thanesar city Police Station FIR No.658 dated 2nd August, 2020 was registered under sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B, Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, hereafter) against 7 (seven) accused which, inter alia, included the petitioner.
3. Investigation of the FIR culminated in submission of a police report dated 14th February, 2022 in terms of section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr. PC”, hereafter) under sections 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B and 180 of the IPC, inter alia, against the petitioner.
4. Perusal of the charge-sheet, however, does not reveal any role of the petitioner in respect of the offence under section 379 of the IPC which was added in the FIR, on the complaint of the second respondent, as far back as on 4th August, 2020.
5. To put it briefly, the FIR stems from allegations levelled by the second respondent of she being allured by the principal accused (who happens to be the sister of the petitioner) to part with Rs. 45 lakh in all (paid partly in cash and partly by RTGS) for the purpose of establishment of a pharma company which would be engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines. Mainly, allegations of cheating and of fraud practiced on her have been levelled by the second respondent against the principal accused, her husband and various other co-accused. It was also alleged that all the accused including the petitioner had assured the second respondent, with the objective of carrying out the criminal conspiracy, that the principal accused was a very hard working and business savvy woman. Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, the second respondent alleged that the petitioner was introduced to her by the principal accused and that she is a member of the gang which cheated and defrauded her. Apart from the above, the FIR contains no other allegation against the petitioner; otherwise, it is replete with allegations levelled against the principal accused, her husband and the other co-accused.
6. We have noticed that the charge-sheet that came to be submitted before the criminal court does not also specify with clarity the role of the petitioner in either cheating or defrauding the second respondent but refers to her, at best, as a conspirator. What is also highlighted in the charge-sheet is that after securing anticipatory bail, the petitioner had joined the investigation on 30th July, 2021 and in course thereof she had made a confessional statement which, ultimately, she declined to sign; hence, she was also charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 180 of the IPC.
7. Upon the charge-sheet being received, the criminal court took cognizance of the offence and thereafter charges were framed against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra (“CJM”, hereafter) by an order dated 18th July, 2022. Such order was challenged by the petitioner under section 397, Cr. PC. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, (“ASJ”, hereafter), by an order dated 27th September, 2022, dismissed the revision as lacking in merit.
8. At this stage, the High Court’s jurisdiction under section 482, Cr. PC was invoked by the petitioner subjecting the charge-sheet dated 14th February, 2022, the order of the CJM framing charges dated 18th July, 2022 and the revisional order of the ASJ 27th September, 2022 to challenge. The High Court referred to various judicial precedents outlining the contours of exercise of jurisdiction by the high courts while they are approached for quashing an FIR / a complaint and / or criminal proceedings. Relying on such precedents and based on formation of opinion that there was sufficient material found against the petitioner in course of investigation, the High Court by its impugned judgment and order dated 11th November, 2022 spurned the challenge and declined interference resulting in dismissal of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
9. Aggrieved thereby,
Quashing of criminal proceeding – It is no part of business of any of courts to ascertain what outcome of trial could be – Unless prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in abuse of p....
The power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, and the court cannot interfere with the investigation process unless there are exceptional circums....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the contents of the FIR disclose commission of any offence, the same cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the need for strong suspicion of the accused's guilt at the stage of framing charges and the requirement of exceptional circumstances to quash a charge or FIR.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for specific allegations justifying investigation, the caution against interfering with ongoing investigations, and the need for....
The Court held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding if it is found that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
