Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. PATNAIK & SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
AMIT KAPOOR - Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDER & ANR. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1516 of 2010)
Decided on : 13-09-2012.
(1982) 1 SCC 561; 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 227 and 228 – Discharge of accused and framing of charge – For exercising power under section 227 the court has to make definite opinion – On the other hand, for section 228 only a tentative opinion has to be made – Final test of guilt is not to be applied at the stage of s. 228. (Para 11)
(1977) 4 SCC 39 – Relied upon
(c) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 397 and 482 –Scope of revisional jurisdiction under section 397 is very limited – Can be exercised to examine correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by an inferior court – Section 482 confers very wide powers to do justice and to ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted to be abused – Power under Section 482 being extraordinary and residuary power, is inapplicable in regard to matters which are specifically provided – Section 482 can be invoked where the order in question is neither an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final order. (Para 12, 13)
AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC 43; (2001) 8 SCC 570; (1992) 4 SCC 305 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal proceedings also involving civil wrong – Ingredients of the criminal offence satisfied – Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. (Para 18)
(2006) 6 SCC 736 – Relied upon
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 397 and 482 – Principles for exercise of powers under – Stated – Where factual foundation for an offence is laid down and requirements of offence are sufficiently complied – Courts should be reluctant to quash proceedings. (Para 19, 20)
AIR 1982 SC 949; AIR 1988 SC 709; AIR 1993 SC 892; AIR 1996 SC 309; AIR 2000 SC 754; AIR 2003 SC 1069; AIR 1988 SC 128; (1996) 7 SCC 705; (1995) 4 SCC 41; AIR 2005 SC 9; AIR 2000 SC 1869; (2009) 14 SCC 466; (2009) 7 SCC 234; (2009) 11 SCC 203; AIR 1987 SC 877; AIR 1991 SC 1260; (2001) 2 SCC 17; (2001) 8 SCC 645; (2005) 12 SCC 338; (2001) 7 SCC 659; AIR 2001 SC 2037 – Relied upon
(f) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – High Court opining that facts relating to offence u/s 306 IPC would ravel only during trial – Still quashing the proceeding – Impermissible. (Para 21)
(1996) 4 SCC 659 – Relied upon
(g) Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – High Court quashing charges u/s 306 but permitting proceeding u/s 448 on same charges – Contradictory – Not permissible. (Para 22)
(h) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – High Court appreciating and evaluating the record and documents – Not permissible at this stage. (Para 23)
(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 107 r/w 306, and108 – Abetter – Person abetting commission of an offence or commission of an act which would be an offence. (Para 24)
(2009) 16 SCC 605; (2001) 9 SCC 618 – Referred
Facts of the case:
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 has again come up for consideration in this case.
The deceased Komal Kapoor was reported to have committed suicide.
FIR was registered against Ramesh Chander Sibbal (the accused) and another, on the basis of the statement of the son Amit Kapoor and the suicide note.
Charges were framed against the accused under Sections 306 and 448, IPC.
High Court quashed the charge framed under Section 306 IPC, while permitting the Trial Court to continue the trial in relation to the offence under Section 448 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
High Court committed error of law.
Result: Appeal allowed.
The relevant paragraph discussing the limited scope of the revisional court's power and its exercise only in exceptional cases involving illegality or manifest error is typically found in the section outlining the principles of revisional jurisdiction. You should refer to the paragraph that states:
"The revisional court's power is confined to correcting manifest errors or illegality and should be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances."
This would be indicated as (!) .
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.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 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 this stage, that
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
