Advocates:
S. K. DHINGRAANIL KATIYAR

Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL

APPEAL

NO.

1407

OF

2012

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1516 of 2010)

Amit Kapoor

... Appellant

Versus

Ramesh Chander & Anr.

... Respondents

J U D G M

E N T

Swatanter

Kumar,

J .

1.

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 4^th December, 2007, the Rajouri Garden

Police Station received information that a woman had committed

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

suicide at C-224, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi. Upon making

entry under DD No.16A 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

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

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

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

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 1^st December, 2007 to the

deceased which was received