REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2009

ARISING OUT OF

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 1827 OF 2007

CHITRESH KUMAR CHOPRA

…

APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

…

RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

D.K. JAIN, J.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal by special leave is directed against final judgment

and order dated 1^st February, 2007 rendered by the High Court

of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No. 62 of

2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has

dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein

under Section 397 read with Sections 401 and 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”), upholding

the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi,

dated 8^th January, 2004, framing charge against the appellant

for commission of offence under Section 306 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “the IPC”) arising

out of FIR No. 329 of 2002 dated 4^th July, 2002 registered at

Police Station Mehrauli.

3.

On 4^th July, 2002, one Rahul Kaushik lodged the said First

Information Report (FIR) with Police Station, Mehrauli stating

that his father Jitendra Sharma (hereinafter referred to as “the

deceased”) had committed suicide on 3^rd July, 2002 by shooting

himself with his licensed revolver. It was alleged that the

deceased was a partner with the appellant in this appeal along

with two other persons viz., Jahuruddin and Mahavir Prasad

and they were all engaged in the real estate business; he

committed suicide on account of the problems created by these

three persons; the deceased left behind a suicide note which

mentioned that there were some money transactions between

them and thus, these three persons had abetted the deceased

to commit suicide. For the sake of ready reference, relevant

portion of the suicide note is extracted below:

“The money of Shri Bansi Dhar and Shri Grewal is with

Ram Pashre. The money of Shri Puri and Rajendra has

been given to Ramjan, Mehrauli by Jahur and Jahur has

become dishonest. The money of B.C. Malik and K.S.

Yadav is with Mahesh, who has written the same and

given. The rest, the ex-SDE, Pamer Singh and had taken

and did not do Puri’s work.

My children known nothing about this matter. C.K.

Chopra’s money has been given by Jahur, Jahur and

2

Chopra are saying things against me and are thereby

troubling me. Kartar etc., money was taken by Jahur and

Mahavir. They had taken it. The reason for the scandal

are Chopra and his friends. They are troubling me and

are pressurizing me to write all this. I am stressed and

therefore, going away.”

4.

On completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet

against the said three persons including the appellant for

allegedly committing offence punishable under Section 306

read with Section 34 of the IPC. As per the charge-sheet, the

case of the prosecution in short is that there appeared to be a

dispute between the deceased and the appellant regarding

share of profits from the sale of the lands; prior to the incident,

the deceased was asked to sign a settlement paper, according

to which, the share of the deceased was reduced from 25% to

10% in favour of one Tegh Singh Chabbra and the appellant,

who were otherwise having 45% share each in the profits from

sale proceeds of lands and that due to this dispute, the

deceased was mentally harassed and pressurized by the

appellant and the other two accused, as a result whereof, the

deceased committed suicide.

5.

On being charge-sheeted, all the three accused were put up for

trial before the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The trial

court felt satisfied that there was sufficient material on record

3

for framing of charge against all the three accused. Accordingly,

on 8^th January, 2004, the following charge was framed:

“….

That y