Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MADAN B. LOKUR, R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. – Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 775 OF 2013
Decided On : 23-08-2016
(1998) 4 SCC 605; (2000) 4 SCC 84 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154, 173 – Deceased resident of Durg committing suicide in matrimonial home at Ambala – Relatives not raising any suspicion over death – Police u/s 174 not finding any foul play – Appellant visiting in-laws and staying with them after death of deceased several times – No evidence of offence being a continuing offence – Brother of deceased filing FIR at Durg after five years – Magistrate taking cognizance – Liable to be quashed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. (Para 15, 16)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 154 – Delay in lodging FIR – Deceased wife dying in matrimonial home – Police closing case u/s 174 – Respondents not raising any suspicion – FIR not lodged – Relations between respondents father and brother of deceased with appellant husband continuing to be cordial even after death of deceased – Respondent 2, on basis of an anonymous letter filing FIR after five of death of deceased – Allegations vague and reckless – FIR, held, abuse of process of law – Deserves to be quashed. (Para 18)
(2012) 4 SCC 379 – Relied upon
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – FIR making only vague and reckless allegations – Not disclosing any cognizable offence – FIR lodged after delay of five years – Barred by lack of territorial jurisdiction – High Court directing continuation of investigation on ground that it is in advance at stage – Not noticing that investigation was barred in law – High Court ought to have quashed FIR. (Para 20, 22)
(1992) Supp (1) SCC 335; (2013) 3 SCC 330 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Manoj Kumar Sharma-the appellant-accused, who was serving in the Indian Air Force at the relevant time, got married to one Nandini on 27.04.1999. On 20.09.1999, Nandini Sharma (since deceased) committed suicide at her matrimonial home.
Police found no foul play and Final Report was submitted.
A Court of Inquiry (CoI) was also convened but after completion of the Inquiry the case was finally closed on 25.07.2000.
After five years of the closing of the above case, a fresh FIR was got registered by Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma (Respondent No. 2 herein) – brother of the deceased against Manoj Sharma-appellant No. 1 herein, Heera Lal Sharma, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Smt. Hem Lata Sharma-the father, uncle and mother of the appellant No. 1 herein respectively under Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 IPC.
The appellants herein filed a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court directed for the continuance of the investigation of the alleged offence.
On 04.04.2007, the said writ petition was withdrawn and the appellants herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being No. 612 of 2007 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR.
Single Judge of the High Court, allowed the proceedings to continue with a direction to the police to hold fair and proper investigation to ensure logical conclusion of the same without unnecessary delay.
The appellants herein filed Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance taken thereof by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.
Finding of the Court:
High Court ought to have quashed the FIR.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The scope and ambit of inquiries under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are very limited, merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and the apparent cause thereof. (!) - An inquiry under Section 174 is entirely distinct from an "investigation" under Section 157 and does not set criminal law into motion by registering an FIR under Section 154. (!) (!) - FIR lodged after a delay of five years, leveling only vague and reckless allegations, is liable to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. (!) - An FIR lodged at a place where no part of the offence is committed, when the offence is not a continuing one, is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. (!) (!) - An FIR can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, where the allegations are inherently improbable and do not disclose the commission of any offence. (!)
JUDGMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 765 of 2011 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.
2) Brief facts:
(a) Manoj Kumar Sharma-the appellant-accused, who was serving in the Indian Air Force at the relevant time, got married to one Nandini on 27.04.1999. On 20.09.1999, Nandini Sharma (since deceased) committed suicide at her matrimonial home. The information with regard to the same was lodged by the Security Officer of the Indian Air Force at Police Station Mulana, District Ambala. On 22.09.1999, post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the body was handed over to the relatives for performing last rites.
(b) On 22.09.1999, the officer in-charge of the investigation, P.S. Mulana submitted a report being No. 26 stating that there was no sign of foul play in the occurrence. On the basis of the investigation, on 24.01.2000, a Final Report was submitted before the sub-Divisional Magistrate which got accepted on 19.02.2000. Simultaneously, a Court of Inquiry (CoI) was also convened to investigate into the alleged role of the appellant-accused but after completion of the Inquiry the case was finally closed on 25.07.2000.
(c) After five years of the closing of the above case, a fresh First Information Report (FIR), being No. 194 dated 29.05.2005 was got registered by Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma (Respondent No. 2 herein) – brother of the deceased against Manoj Sharma-appellant No. 1 herein, Heera Lal Sharma, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Smt. Hem Lata Sharma-the father, uncle and mother of the appellant No. 1 herein respectively at P.S. Bhillai Nagar, District Durg under Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).
(d) Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the appellants herein filed a Writ Petition being No. 2890 of 2005 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 25.07.2005, directed for the continuance of the investigation of the alleged offence.
(e) On 04.04.2007, the said writ petition was withdrawn with the leave of the court and the appellants herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being No. 612 of 2007 before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) for quashing of the FIR. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 17.10.2011, allowed the proceedings to continue with a direction to the police to hold fair and proper investigation to ensure logical conclusion of the same without unnecessary delay.
(f) An application for modification being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 732 of 2011 was filed for modification of the order dated 17.10.2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 612 of 2007 on the ground that during the pendency of the judgment in the matter, the chargesheet came to be filed by the police before the court which was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2011.
(g) Further, the appellants herein filed Criminal Misc. Petition being No. 765 of 2011 under Section 482 read with Section 397 of the Code before the High Court for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance taken thereof by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg dated 03.09.2011 and 13.10.2011 respectively in Criminal Proceeding No. 805 of 2011 arising out of Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered at P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District Durg. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 27.09.2012 dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.
(h) Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the appellants have preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
3) Heard Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants-accused and Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-State. Rival Submissions:
4) Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehement
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
