Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Exercise of power under, scope – Prosecution case was that the victim-deceased, the driver of accused-second respondent committed suicide – In the suicide note, he had made serious and grave allegations against the accused second respondent of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income and a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – Second respondent successfully filed s.482 application for quashing the criminal proceedings – Hence the instant appeal – Held: High Court while exercising its power under s.482 should have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constituted an offence; and ii) whether the allegations were so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint – Rather, High Court stalled the investigation by granting an interim order of stay – The alleged suicide was of a person who was working as a driver of a Special Land Acquisition Officer against whom serious and grave allegations of amassing wealth disproportionate to the known sources of income were made by the deceased and a detailed account of the role of the accused in the events which led to the deceased committing suicide – These were matters of investigation and possibly trial – If the investigation had been allowed to proceed, there would have been a revelation of material facts which would have aided in the trial, for the alleged offence against the second respondent – High Court tested the veracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial – At the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing under s.482, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial – High Court virtually proceeded to hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed should or should not have been the normal course of human behavior – This is clearly impermissible – The entire judgment of the High Court consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exercise is beyond the domain of proceeding under s.482 – High Court had proceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under s.482 – Petition for quashing FIR dismissed – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306.
Mental Health: The High Court while deciding merits of s.482 Cr.P.C petition has made observations diminishing the importance of mental health – Mental health of an individual cannot be compressed to a one size fit all approach.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The Single Judge has failed to notice the distinction between a petition for quashing under Section 482 (which was being considered) and a criminal trial or an appeal against a conviction on a charge under Section 306. The Single Judge has transgressed the limits of the jurisdiction under Section
482 of the CrPC. The judgment is replete with hypothesis and surmises on the basis of which the Single Judge has reached an inference on facts. The Single Judge has tested the veracity of the allegations in the criminal complaint and in the suicide note left behind by the deceased without having the benefit of an evidentiary record which would be collected during the trial. At the stage when the High Court considers a petition for quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC, the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations nor for that matter can it proceed in the manner that a judge conducting a trial would, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of trial. The High Court in the present case has virtually proceeded to hold a trial, substituting its own perception for what it believed should or should not have been the normal course of human behavior. This is clearly impermissible. [Para 16][595-G-H; 596-A-C]
2. The complaint in the present case on the basis of which the FIR was registered contains a detailed account of: The knowledge of the deceased in regard to the illegal activities of the accused; the accused having used the deceased’s bank account for transfer of funds to his relatives; the deceased having been threatened by the accused and by his “house car driver” with death; and the recovery of the suicide note which was also uploaded on the Facebook account of the deceased; The suicide note in turn provides a detailed account of the wealth amassed by the second respondent-accused who was an SLAO, worth over Rs.100 crores; the second respondent-accused having converted approximately Rs. 100 crores into currency notes of various denominations; the knowledge of the deceased with respect the illegal activities of the accused; the accused having used the deceased for the conversion of currency notes amounting to over Rs. 75 crores; the payment of the salary of the deceased, who was a driver having been stopped for three months; a threat of murder being administered to the deceased following a shortage in the currency; and the deceased having decided to end his life by consuming poison, having suffered at the hands of the accused. In this backdrop, it is impossible on a judicious purview of the contents of the complaint and the suicide note for a judicial mind to arrive at a conclusion that a case for quashing the FIR had been established. In arriving at that conclusion, the Single Judge has transgressed the well settled limitations on the exercise of the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has encroached into a territory which is reserved for a criminal trial. [Paras 17, 18] [596-D-H; 597-A-D]
State of Orissa v. Saroj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC
540 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 548; State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : [1990] 3 Suppl. SCR 259; State of M.P. v. Surendra Kori (2012)
10 SCC 155 : [2012] 8 SCR 858; State of Telangana v. Managipet (2019) 19 SCC 87 – relied on.
3. The High Court while exercising its power under Section
482 of the CrPC to quash the FIR instituted against the second respondent-accused should have applied the following two tests: i) whether the allegations made in the complaint, prima facie constitute an offence; and ii) whether the allegations are so improbable that a prudent man would not arrive at the conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the complaint. [Para 21][599-G-H; 600-A-B]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 247; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC
605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230; Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707 : [2009] 15 SCR 836; Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 9 SCC 734 : [2012] 8 SCR 1129; Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of Maharashtra (2018) 7 SCC 781; M. Arjunan v. The State (Represented By Its Inspector of Police) (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301 : [2019] 9 SCR 703; Rajesh @ Sarkari v. The State of Haryana (2020) 15 SCC 359; Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200; Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427 – relied on.
4. While adjudicating on an application under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court in the present case travelled far away from the parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction. Essentially, the task before the High Court was to determine whether the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety did or did not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused. Instead of applying this settled principle, the High Court has proceeded to analyze from its own perspective the veracity of the allegations. This is not a case where the High Court has arrived at a conclusion that the allegations in the FIR or the complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person could ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Nor is this a case where the criminal proceeding is manifestly malafide or has been instituted with an ulterior motive of taking vengeance on the accused. On the contrary, the specific allegations in the FIR and in the complaint find due reflection in the suicide note and establish a prima facie case for abetment of suicide within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC. The entire judgment of the High Court consists of a litany of surmises and conjectures and such an exercise is beyond the domain of proceeding under section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court has proceeded to scrutinize what has been disclosed during the investigation, ignoring that the investigation had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court, during the pendency of the proceedings under section
482. [Paras 25, 26][602-F; 603-A-D]
5. The High Court observed that a prima facie case for the commission of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out since: i) the suicide note does not describe the specific threats; ii) details of the alleged demand of Rs. 8 lacs from the deceased by the respondent-accused are not set out in the suicide note; and iii) no material to corroborate the allegations detailed in the suicide note has been unearthed by the investigating agency. The High Court observed that since the deceased took considerable time to write a twelve page suicide note, “it would have been but natural for the author to set out the details”. The High Court has evidently travelled far beyond the limits of its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC since instead of determining whether on a perusal of the complaint, a prima facie case is made out, it has analysed the sufficiency of the evidence with reference to the suicide note and has commented upon and made strong observations on the suicide note itself. Further, the observation of the High Court that there is no material to corroborate the allegations made in the suicide note is erroneous since it is not a consideration for the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 of the CrPC, particularly in view of the fact that the trial has not begun and the Single Judge had stayed the investigation in the criminal complaint. [Para 27][603-D-G; 604-H; 605-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.