SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(UK) 432

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar
Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012
AMIT KAPOOR – Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHANDER & ANR. – Respondents
Decided on : 13.09.2012

For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Dhingra, Mr. M.L. Khattar, Mrs. Shefali Mitra, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Mr. Seeraj Baga, Mr. Rajinder Mathur, Advocates

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 397, 227, 228 — Jurisdiction of revisional Court — Scope and ambit — Sec. 397, Cr.P.C. vests the Court with power to call for and examine the records of an inferior Court for the purposes of satisfying itself as to legality and regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case — Also, the object of the provisions of Sec. 397, Criminal Code is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or of law — But, while dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, Court may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction — And framing of charge is even a much advanced stage in proceedings under the Criminal Code (Paras 8 to 13 and 19)

       (B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 482, 227, 228 — Jurisdiction of High Court — Exercise — Ambit and scope — Framing of charge is an exercise of jurisdiction by trial Court in terms of Sec. 228, Cr.P.C. unless the accused is discharged u/s 227, Cr.P.C. — Inherent powers u/s 482, Cr.P.C. can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Sec. 397(2), Cr.P.C. nor a final order in the strict sense.

        (Paras 10 to 15 and 19)

       (C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Secs. 397, 482, 228 — Proper exercise of jurisdiction under — Quashing of charge — Principles for — Stated. (Para 19)

       ¼v½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 397] 227] 228 & iqujh{k.k vnkyr dh vf/kdkfjrk & foLrkj o ifjf/k & /kkjk 397 Cr.P.C. dks vf/kdkj nsrh gS fd og fupyh vnkyr ds vfHkys[k dks eaxk, vkSj ijh{k.k dj lds] fdlh okn esa vkns’k dh oS/krk ;k dk;Zokgh dh fu;ferrk ls larq”V gksus ds mn~ns’; ls & vkSj ;g fd /kkjk 397, Cr.P.C. ds izkoèkkuksa dk mn~ns’; gS fd izR;{k xyrh] vf/kdkfjrk ;k vof/k esa =qfV dks lq/kkjk tk lds & ijUrq tc iz’u gks fd D;k vijk/k dk nks”k oSf/kd gS rc vnkyr vius iqujh{k.k vfèkdkfjrk dk iz;ksx dj gLr{ksi djus ds fy, vfuPNqd & vkSj ;g fd vkjksi dh fojpuk Cr.P.C. ds vUrxZr ,d vfr mPp izØe gSA ¼izLrj 8 ls 13 vkSj 19½

       ¼c½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 482] 227] 228 & mPp U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk & iz;ksx & foLrkj o ifjf/k & vkjksi dh fojpuk ijh{k.k vnkyr }kjk vf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gS /kkjk 228, Cr.P.C. esa tc rd fd nks”kh dks vkjksfir u fd;k x;k gks u/s 227, Cr.P.C. & /kkjk 482, Cr.P.C. ds rgr vUrfuZfgr ‘kfDr;ksa dh enn yh tk ldrh gS tc iz’u esa vkns’k u rks vUroZrhZ vkns’k gks /kkjk 397(2), Cr.P.C ds vFkZ esa u gh vfUre vkns’k gks fu;r :i lsA ¼izLrj 10 ls 15 vkSj 19½

       ¼l½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973] /kkjk 397] 227] 228 & vf/kdkfjrk dk mfpr iz;ksx vUrxZr & vkjksi dk vfHk[kaMu & ds fl)kar & mYysf[krA ¼izLrj 19½

       

JUDGMENT

Swatanter Kumar, J. — Leave granted.

2. A question of law that arises more often than not in criminal cases is that of the extent and scope of the powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 397 independently or read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the ‘Code’).

3. The facts as they emerge from the record fall within a very narrow compass. On 4th December, 2007, the Rajouri Garden Police Station received information that a woman had committed suicide at C-224, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi. Upon making entry under DD No.l6A of that date, Sub Inspector O.P. Mandal commenced investigation and reached the place of occurrence. The deceased was identified as Komal Kapoor. Her body was sent for post mortem. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of her son Amit Kapoor and on 5.12.2007 at about 12.15 p.m. an FIR was registered on the complaint filed by him. This FIR was registered against Ramesh Chander Sibbal (the accused) and another, on the basis of the statement of Amit Kapoor and the suicide note. According to Amit Kapoor, he knew Ramesh Chander Sibbal for the last 10 years. Father of Amit Kapoor was running a paint brush business and had purchased property No.C-225, Tagore Garden, Delhi through the said Ramesh Chander Sibbal. Since the father of Amit Kapoor had fallen ill, his mother was also looking after the business. However, the family business suffered acute losses. The family discussed the possibility of selling their moveable and immoveable property situated at Rohini. The accused persons are stated to have fraudulently obtained signatures of the deceased in this connection. In order to get over the financial crises and to meet their liabilities, the deceased had also discussed the possibility of selling another plot owned by the family situated in Bawana Industrial Area. At that time also, the accused told the deceased that certain documents have to be executed before the plot is sold. On this pretext, he again got some papers signed by them. The accused paid a sum of Rs.5,00.000/- to the deceased at the first instance and thereafter a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the plot situated in Bawana as against the market value of Rs.28,00,000/-, with an assurance that the rest of the amount will be paid after execution of the sale deed.

4. Around the time of Dussehra in 2007, the accused approached the deceased claiming that he be given accommodation on a temporary basis for a period of ten to twelve days on the ground floor of her house situated at C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi on the pretext that his own house was under renovation. The deceased believing him and keeping the relationship in mind, agreed and allowed him to occupy two rooms on the ground floor, It is alleged that while the deceased was away at Haridwar, just before the festival of Diwali, the accused encroached upon one more room in the said house. When the deceased asked the accused to vacate the said premises, he refused and, on the contrary, stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- and that it was his house. Not only this, the accused as well as his son threatened the deceased and her family to vacate the house or else they would ruin them. It is also alleged that when the deceased asked the accused as to when she will get rid of this problem, he is said to have replied that she could get rid of this only after her death. This was followed by the accused sending a legal notice dated 1st December, 2007 to the deceased which was received on 3rd December, 2007 in which similar claim was made by the accused against the deceased. The trust that she had placed upon the accused was totally betrayed by him. This led to the deceased slipping into depression. In face of all these circumstances, coupled with the threats extended by the accused persons, the deceased committed suicide on 4.12.2007 at about 7.30 a.m. by hanging herself from a ceiling fan, using a scarf (chunni). It may be noticed at thi


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top