LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, August 30, 2021

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.=In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal proceedings in P.R. C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 873 OF 2021

Saranya …Appellant

Versus

Bharathi and another …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Criminal OP No. 1443 of 2020, by which the High Court in

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed and set

aside the entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein –

original accused no.2 (A2) in P.R.C. No.250 of 2019 on the file of the

learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the original

1

complainant – wife of the deceased – victim has preferred the present

appeal.

2. That an FIR was lodged against respondent no.1 herein and one

another on the statement of the appellant herein initially for the offences

under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420, r/w 34 IPC. As per the statement

and the allegations in the FIR, her husband was serving as Assistant

Professor a year before. However, thereafter he was unemployed; that

she had studied up to B.Com and looking after the domestic works; that

since her husband was unemployed and it was difficult to maintain the

family expenses, at that time, one Vela alias Velayutham was introduced

by respondent no.1 herein and told them that the said Vela alias

Velayutham is employed at Guindy Employment Exchange and that if

they give money, he can arrange Government employment for them; it

was further alleged that believing in his words they gave Rs. 4 lakhs to

Velayutham about six months before; that on 23.09.2019 the said

Velayutham promised that my husband will get the appointment order

today itself and asked us to come to Vyasarpadi; that as asked by

Velayutham, A1 in the aforesaid FIR, the complainant and her husband

went to Flat No. 560, 8th Main Road behind Vyasarpadi Mullai Nagar Bus

Depot at about 9:00 a.m. and met him; that A1 offered them ‘Prasadam’

from Shirdi Sai Baba Temple and to talk after our taking the Prasadam;

2

that it was a powder like Vibhuti in Shiva Temples; that since the powder

was bitter in taste, she spitted it out, however, her husband had

consumed it; that her husband fainted and fell down and that she was

also feeling drowsy; that people nearby called 108 Ambulance and sent

them to Stanley Hospital for treatment; that while she was on treatment

she came to know that her husband died at the spot of the incident itself;

that it was alleged that the powder given by Velayutham-A1 was the

cause for her husband’s death and her drowsiness; that the statement of

the complainant was recorded at the hospital on 24.09.2019 which at the

relevant time was treated as dying declaration. The relevant extract of

the same is as under:

“My name is Saranya I studied B.Com, I got married, my husband name is

Karthick, I am having two sons, I am a house wife, my husband was

professor and due to non-payment of salary, he started Xerox shop. One

Bharathi regularly come to my husband’s Xerox shop for Xeroxing. She

said that she is working in secretariat, she said there is a job in

employment office and for arranging the same Rs. 6 Lakhs may be given,

we decided the job for my husband as advance during 7 month we paid 5

Lakhs. Daily when enquired the phone, the file has been moved, one week

ago he said that he will give order copy and saibaba prasadam. We went

to palani with family and returned on Monday at 7.30 hrs, Since, there is

examination for our sons, I took my sons to school due to delay and

spoken with the madam and left my sons in the school, my husband saw

the missed call from velayutham three times, immediately my husband

asked me to go home but I wanted to accompany him to Mullai Nagar.

Previously I went to guindy office, velayutham asked as to come in the

lane, green colour house is my house. He showed an order and given

viboothi and kungumam and we kept it then he opened the box in the

vehicle, he has given some powder from to me and my husband yellow

colour cover in spoon, immediately velayutham took the mobile of her

husband and went in two wheeler for taking Xerox copy of the order copy.

My husband took the prasadam and felt something irritation and

immediately took the water and spit the same, and also he give water to

his wife with instruction to spit the content in her mouth, she also spit the

content, my husband suffered fits and he closed his eyes, I do not know

3

what had happened to me. When I wake up, I was in the hospital.

Velayutham has given something to my husband and killed him, Bharathi

is also the cause. Enquiry completed at 02.55 afternoon. The Patient

conscious and able to speak till completing the declaration.”


2.1 That the dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate in the

presence of Doctor who certified that the patient was conscious and able

to speak; that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellantcomplainant that it was the respondent no.1 herein – original accused

no.2 who introduced Vela @ Velayutham – A1 to them and she said that

she is working in the Secretariat and that there is a job in the

employment office and for arranging the same, Rs. 6 lakhs may be given

and relying upon her statement Rs. 5 lakhs was given; that thereafter

after the investigation the investigating officer filed the chargesheet

against Vela @ Velayutham – A1 for the offences under Sections 326,

307, 302, 420 r/w 34 IPC and against respondent no.1 herein – A2 for

the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w Section 109 IPC; that the case

was pending for committal before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore, Chennai; that at this stage respondent No.1 herein – A2

approached the High Court by way of Criminal O.P. No. 1443 of 2020

under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing the entire chargesheet as

against her, pending committal in P.R.C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of

the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; that by the

impugned judgment and order, the High Court in exercise of powers

4

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed and set aside the entire

chargesheet and the criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 hereinA2 in P.R.C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302

r/w 109 IPC.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the

entire criminal proceedings/chargesheet qua respondent no.1 herein-A2

in P.R.C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan

Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302

r/w 109 IPC, the original complainant – victim – wife of the deceased has

preferred the present appeal.

4. Shri G.S. Mani, learned Advocate has appeared for the appellant,

Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of

respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2 and Shri (Dr.) Joseph

Aristotle S, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent

– State of Tamil Nadu.

4.1 Shri Mani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant

has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and

setting aside the entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein

5

for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC, in exercise of

powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.2 It is submitted that despite the fact that there is ample material

against respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2, the High Court

has quashed the entire criminal proceedings/chargesheet by entering

into the merits of the allegations and appreciating the evidence on

record, which at this stage and while considering the application under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible.

4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the

fact that as such it was respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2

who assured and/or given promise that she will arrange for the job and

for that she demanded the money.

4.4 It is submitted that as such respondent no.1 herein – original

accused no.2 introduced Vela @ Velayutham – A1 to the complainant

and her husband and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs were given to A1. It is

submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that

as such there was confessional statement of respondent no.1 herein –

A2 and on the basis of the said confessional statement, there was a

recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of respondent no.1

herein – original accused no.2.

6

4.5 It is further submitted that during the course of the investigation,

the investigating officer also collected the evidence in the form of call

details, more particularly the calls between A1 & A2 in the proximity of

the time of commission of offence.

4.6 It is submitted that despite the above material collected and the

circumstances, the High Court has erroneously quashed the

chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein –

original accused no.2, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4.7 It is submitted that while quashing the chargesheet/entire criminal

proceedings, the High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged

during the course of investigation. The High Court has not at all applied

the relevant test, namely, when there is sufficient ground for proceeding

against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming that

accused has committed the offence. It is submitted that the High Court

has exceeded in its jurisdiction to quash the chargesheet/entire criminal

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Heavy

reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State of

Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 62.

4.8 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present

appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the

7

chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein –

original accused no.2 for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109

IPC.

5. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of

the State of Tamil Nadu has supported the appellant. Reliance is placed

on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 – State of

Tamil Nadu.

5.1 It is vehemently submitted that as such during the course of the

investigation, the investigating officer collected ample material/evidence

against both the accused and only thereafter chargesheet has been filed

against A1 for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420, r/w 34

IPC and for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC against

respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2.

5.2 It is vehemently submitted that during the course of the

investigation, the investigating officer has collected the call details

between A1 and A2. It is submitted that perusal of the call details report

furnished by the service provider and the nodal officer clearly proves that

there were several calls made by both A1 and A2, vice versa, for

example on 23.09.2019 (the day when the incident had occurred) at

about 09:05:26, respondent no.1 herein – A2 made a call to A1 on his

mobile No. 9790846016 from her mobile No. 6382028209 and again A1

8

had made a call to A2 – respondent no.1 herein on the same day at

about 09:51:59 and 09:55:15. It is submitted that it clearly shows that at

that time A1 was available at the place of the incident and for second call

also tower location showed the same place. It is submitted that again on

the same day from mobile No. 9790846016, A1 made a call to A2 on her

mobile no. 6382028209 at about 6:36 p.m. It is submitted that therefore

it is clearly established that the said Mrs. Bharathi, respondent no.1

herein – A2 aided and instigated the offence committed by A1.

5.3 It is further submitted that there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20

thousand from the house of A2 at the instance of A2. It is submitted

therefore that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction to quash

the chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein,

while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

respondent no.1 herein – A2 has submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case and considering the material/evidence on

record and having found that there is not even a prima facie

evidence/material against respondent no.1 herein – A2, the High Court

has rightly quashed the chargesheet/criminal proceedings qua

respondent no.1 herein in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It is submitted that as such and even considering the statement of the

9

original complainant as it is and even considering the case of the

prosecution as it is, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 herein – A2

has committed any offence under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC. It is

submitted that from the statement of the original complainant –

appellant, it can be gathered that the allegations against A2 is that she

introduced A1 to them; that an amount of Rs.4/5 lakhs was paid to A1;

that the allegations of giving poison and even purchasing of poison is

against A1 only; that there is no evidence that at the time when A1 gave

poison to the deceased, A2 – respondent no.1 herein was present.

6.1 It is further submitted that the so-called confessional statement of

A2 is not admissible in the evidence at all and therefore no reliance can

be placed upon such alleged confessional statement, which has no

evidentiary value.

6.2 It is further submitted that even the so-called recovery of Rs. 1 lakh

20 thousand from the house of A2 cannot bring home the charge against

A2 for the offences for which she has been chargesheeted. It is

submitted that there is no evidence at all that it was the very money

which was given to A1 by the complainant.

6.3 It is submitted that even the so-called call details between A1 & A2

cannot be said to be a sufficient material/evidence against A2. Merely

because A1 & A2 might have talked cannot be held against A2.

10

6.4 It is further submitted that even the statement of the complainant

recorded on 24.09.2019 recorded at the hospital cannot be treated as

dying declaration as subsequently she survived. It is submitted that

there is improvement in the case and subsequently she had come out

with the case that she paid Rs. 5 lakhs, whereas as per the original

case, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was given.

6.5 It is submitted that as such there is no material/evidence at all

against A2 for the offence under Section 109 IPC. It is submitted that no

case of appellant attracting the offence under Section 109 IPC against

respondent no.1 herein – A2 is made out. It is submitted that there is no

ingredient available as against A2 to attract the offence under Section

109 IPC.

6.6 It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances of the

case, the High Court has not committed any error in quashing and

setting aside the chargesheet/criminal proceedings qua accused no.2 in

exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the present

appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at

length.

11

Before considering the rival submissions of the parties, few

decisions of this Court on the principles which the High Court must keep

in mind while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./at the

stage of framing of the charge while considering the discharge

application are required to be referred to and considered.

7.1 In the case of Deepak (supra), to which one of us (Dr. Justice D.Y.

Chandrachud) is the author, after considering the other binding decisions

of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander

(2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3

SCC 198; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is observed and held that at the stage of

framing of charges, the Court has to consider the material only with a

view to find out if there is a ground for “presuming” that the accused

had committed the offence. It is observed and held that at that stage,

the High Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on

record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, take at

their face value, disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting

the alleged offence or offences. It is further observed and held that at

this stage the High Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on

record and consider the allegations on merits and to find out on the basis

12

of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom

the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not.

8. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record raising

the strong suspicion against respondent no.1 herein – A2 also. It has

been found that A2- respondent no.1 herein 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 can manage to get the job/employment for

the deceased but for that they have 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 herein – A2 at the instance of A2

herself. It may be true that the so-called confessional statement of

respondent no.1 herein is inadmissible in evidence. However, it is to be

noted that on the basis of such statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1

lakh 20 thousand from the house of A2 – respondent no.1 herein. 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.

13

Even the source of Rs. 1lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by

the accused.

9. It also appears that 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 herein has been

chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC

and as observed hereinabove when there is ample material to show at

least a prima facie case against respondent no.1 herein – 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 has evidently ignored what has emerged during the

course of investigation. The High Court has 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

14

circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed

the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2.

10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present

appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the

High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal proceedings in P.R. C.

No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC

qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2 deserves to be

quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now

the learned Magistrate to proceed further with the case, in accordance

with law. It goes without saying that any observations made by this

Court in the present order shall be confined to while considering the

application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the trial in the aforesaid case

shall proceed further on its own merits, in accordance with law on the

basis of the evidence laid.

11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

….…………………………………J.

[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud]

New Delhi; ……………………………………..J.

August 24, 2021. [M.R. Shah]

15