Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State of Kerala and Others — Appellants
versus
S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.2086 of 2014
Decided on : 13-08-2015
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings on the basis of suicide note – No other material – Charge of abetting suicide u/s 107 IPC – Suicide note being vague, no case made out u/s 107 – High Court rightly quashed the FIR. (Para 18)
(2005) 2 SCC 659; (2011) 3 SCC 626; (2007) 10 SCC 797; (2010) 1 SCC 707 – Relied upon
(2012) 9 SCC 734 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
One Sampath was alleged to have been beaten to death by the investigating agency, that is, the State police, while he was in custody. His brother, Murukeshan, preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed I.A. No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for issuance of a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far conducted and production of the entire case diary because he was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the State police and his prayer was for better and more rigorous investigation.
High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to investigate as there were certain allegations against the State police.
One Haridath was the Chief Investigating Officer who was assisted by a team of officers which included the respondent Nos.1 and 2. While the investigation was in progress, Haridath committed suicide on 15th March, 2012, leaving behind a suicide note. The said note reads as follows:
“Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are responsible for my this situation. Nobody else has any role in this. They who compelled me to do everything and cheated me and put me in deep trouble. Advocate Seekumar also has some role. CJM Sri Vijayan also put pressure on me.
Nobody else has any role in this.”
On the basis of the aforesaid suicide note, the criminal law was set in motion, FIR was registered u/s 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 and the respondents were arrayed as accused.
The High Court quashed the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly quashed the FIR.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J. —The seminal question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the F.I.R. lodged against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the impugned order dated 14th December, 2012.
2. At the outset, we must state that Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has submitted that there is no grievance as far as the quashment of the offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A I.P.C. is concerned. Therefore, the central challenge pertains to quashing of the offence punishable under Section 306 I.P.C.
3. The facts in detail need not be stated, for the controversy really lies in a narrow compass. As the factual matrix would unfurl, one Sampath was alleged to have been beaten to death by the investigating agency, that is, the State police, while he was in custody. His brother, Murukeshan, preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed I.A. No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for issuance of a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to submit a detailed report regarding the investigation so far conducted and production of the entire case diary. As is manifest, he was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the State police and his prayer was for better and more rigorous investigation. Be it noted, the High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to investigate as there were certain allegations against the State police.
4. While dealing with the interlocutory application filed by Murukeshan, the brother of Sampath, the High Court has opined thus:
“The re-constitution of the investigation team by inducting one Haridath as the Chief Investigating Officer, naturally engendered a fear in the mind of the petitioner that some attempt was afoot to deflect the course of investigation. It is that fear which has necessitated this application.”
From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that Haridath was the Chief Investigating Officer. After the investigating team was constituted by the higher officer, the High Court, as the order would further unveil, had given immense protection to Haridath as far as investigation is concerned.
We may profitably reproduce the said paragraph hereunder:
“The induction of Haridath at the helm of affairs in the investigation of Sampath Murder Case need not cause any concern either to the petitioner or to anybody else. Haridath is believed to be an officer of proven integrity and of bold disposition. He shall, however, submit a report every three weeks, under intimation to this Court, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, regarding the progress of the investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall also monitor the investigation and if need be call for the case diary for his perusal. The present team of investigation shall not be dislocated or changed without the orders of this Court. Should any member of the investigating team feel that there is any interference with his freedom either from the C.B.I. or from elsewhere, such member shall be free to address this Court through the Registrar General in a sealed cover.”
5. The aforesaid paragraph makes it quite vivid that the High Court had really reposed faith in Haridath and also granted him freedom to investigate and liberty to address the court through the Registrar General in a sealed cover.
The said order was passed on 22nd December, 2010.
6. The said Haridath was assisted by a team of officers which included the respondent Nos.1 and 2. While the investigation was in progress, Haridath committed suicide on 15th March, 2012, leaving behind a suicide note. The said note reads as follows:
“Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are responsible for my this situation. Nobody
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
