Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Exercise of power under – Stage of framing of charge – High Court quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings qua co-accused-respondent no. 1 for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 IPC – Correctness of – Held: High Court entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not – At this stage, while considering the application u/s.482 Cr.P.C., this is not at all permissible – High Court was not conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal – Furthermore, there was ample material to show at least a prima facie case against respondent no. 1, the High Court ought not to have quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 – Order passed by the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal proceedings for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 qua respondent no.1 quashed and set aside.
s. 482 – Stage of framing of charge while considering the discharge application – Principles which the High Court to keep in mind while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 – Stated.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is sufficient material on record raising the strong suspicion against respondent no.1-A2 also. It has been found that A2-respondent no.1 who was serving in the Secretariat and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as she used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she introduced A1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is specifically alleged that she said that she could manage to get the job/employment for the deceased but for that they had to pay. It is true that as per the case of the prosecution and even as per the statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to A1. However, during the course of the investigation, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the house of respondent no. 1-A2 at the instance of A2 herself. The so-called confessional statement of respondent no.1 is inadmissible in evidence. However, on the basis of such statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of A2- respondent no.1. The other aspect whether the recovered amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount which was given by the deceased and the complainant to A1 is a matter of evidence to be considered during trial. Even the source of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by the accused. [Para 8][522-F-H; 523-A-B]
1.2 During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer has collected very important evidence in the form of call details between A1 & A2 which are in the proximity of the time of commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when respondent no.1 has been chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC and when there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against respondent no.1-A2, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Quashing the chargesheet against the accused is not justified. The High Court evidently ignored what has emerged during the course of investigation. The High Court entered into the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1- original accused no.2. The judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC qua respondent no.1-accused no.2 is quashed and set aside. [Para 9, 10][523-B-F-G]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2019) 13 SCC
62 : [2019] 2 SCR 1055 – relied on.
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 : [2012] 7 SCR 988; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198 : [2017] 2 SCR 491; Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 – referred to.
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.