Case title:
Supriya Jain vs. State Of Haryana and Anr.
Date of Order:
July 04, 2023.
Bench:
Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta.
Parties:
Appellant- Supriya Jain
Respondents- State of Haryana and Anr
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 162 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
No statement made by a person to a police officer in the course of any investigation under Chapter XII of the Cr. PC, which is reduced to writing, is required to be signed by the person making the statement and that section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign.
OVERVIEW
- The second respondent filed a complaint at Thanesar City Police Station, resulting in the registration of FIR No. 658 on August 2, 2020. The FIR was filed under sections 406, 420, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- The accused in the case, including the petitioner, were mentioned. After conducting an investigation, a police report was submitted on February 14, 2022, in accordance with section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC).
- The report implicated the petitioner under sections 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B, and 180 of the IPC. However, upon reviewing the charge-sheet, it is evident that the petitioner's involvement in the offense under section 379 of the IPC, which was added to the FIR based on the second respondent's complaint on August 4, 2020, is not mentioned.
- The FIR originates from the claims made by the second respondent, who states that she was lured by the main accused (who happens to be the petitioner's sister) into giving a total of Rs. 45 lakh. The payment was made partly in cash and partly through RTGS, with the purpose of establishing a pharmaceutical company focused on manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines.
- The second respondent accuses the main accused, her husband, and several other co-accused of cheating and committing fraud against her. It is alleged that all the accused, including the petitioner, assured the second respondent that the main accused was a diligent and business-savvy woman, as part of their criminal conspiracy.
- Regarding the petitioner's involvement, the second respondent claims that the petitioner was introduced to her by the main accused and is a member of the group responsible for deceiving and defrauding her.
- Apart from these allegations, there are no other claims against the petitioner in the FIR, which primarily focuses on accusing the main accused, her husband, and the other co-accused.
- After receiving the charge-sheet, the criminal court acknowledged the offense and proceeded to formally accuse the defendants. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Kurukshetra framed charges against the accused through an order issued on July 18, 2022.
- The petitioner challenged this order under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC). However, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) of Kurukshetra rejected the revision petition on September 27, 2022, stating that it lacked merit.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The charge-sheet outlines the details mentioned in the FIR and refers to the evidence gathered during the investigation. The Investigating Officer obtained the Call Details Record (CDR) and Customer Acquisition Form (CAF) of the cell phones belonging to the second respondent and the petitioner.
- Additionally, attempts were made to acquire a certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act from the relevant service providers. However, these attempts were unsuccessful as the conversations were deemed too old, resulting in the inability to issue the required certificate.
- The charge-sheet also mentioned that the main accused and the co-accused were yet to be arrested. Once they are apprehended, a separate supplementary challan would be prepared and presented to the court. Nonetheless, there was sufficient evidence available in the case file to prepare a challan against the petitioner.
- If the documents presented by the petitioner are authentic, they may prove beneficial for her defense during the trial. However, at the current stage of determining whether the requested quashing of charges by the petitioner before the High Court is justified or not, these documents are not relevant.
- Therefore, the Supreme Court finds no grounds to consider or rely upon these three documents.
- The fourth document submitted in support of the petitioner's request to quash the proceedings against her is the statement of the second respondent under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC). In that statement, the second respondent mentioned, among other things, that she paid Rs. 9.50 lakh in cash to the main accused at a specific residence (House No. 620 in Sector-4, Kurukshetra).
- The principal accused, the petitioner, and their mother were present at the house, and upon receiving the cash, "they" (referring to the principal accused, the petitioner, and their mother) counted the money, which was ultimately retained by the principal accused.
- The second respondent stated that her sister-in-law, Indu, was also present during this incident. Furthermore, the second respondent asserted in her statement that the main accused, her husband, the petitioner, and the other accused collectively deceived her, resulting in a loss of Rs. 45 lakh, as described in the statement.
- The principles regarding the quashing of charges or proceedings under section 397 or section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) have been the subject of discussion in this Court on numerous occasions. While it is unnecessary to refer to every precedent, there is one decision, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra, where this Court has succinctly summarized the guiding principles after considering almost all relevant precedents.
- According to the principles laid down in that case:
- The Court should exercise its power to quash criminal proceedings, especially charges framed under Section 228 of the Code, with great caution and only in exceptional cases. The power should be used sparingly.
- The Court should assess whether the allegations made in the case records and accompanying documents, which are uncontested, establish the offense prima facie. If the allegations are so clearly absurd and inherently improbable that no reasonable person could accept them, and if the essential elements of a criminal offense are not satisfied, the Court may intervene.
- The High Court should not excessively interfere and meticulously examine the evidence to determine whether the case will result in conviction at the stage of framing or quashing of charges.
- Only in cases where the exercise of such power is absolutely necessary to prevent a glaring miscarriage of justice or correct a serious error by subordinate courts, should the High Court be reluctant to interfere and halt the prosecution using its inherent powers.
- In summary, the Court emphasized that while the power to quash charges exists, it should be exercised cautiously, considering the prima facie validity of the allegations, and should be used sparingly in exceptional circumstances to prevent a miscarriage of justice or grave errors committed by lower courts.
CONCLUSION
- Applying the overarching principles established by this Court, Supreme Court conclude that this is not one of those exceptional cases where, despite the undisputed allegations presented in the materials on record, it can be argued that no prima facie opinion can be formed indicating the commission of an offense by the petitioner.
- It is well-established that a conspiracy to commit an offense is distinct from the actual offense itself, which would be subject to a separate charge if it is proven to have occurred.
- The allegations that the petitioner was observed counting the cash received by the main accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, the main accused, to deceive and defraud the second respondent lead us to conclude that the involvement of the petitioner, however limited, cannot be disregarded at this stage.
- Therefore, the trial was allowed to proceed, and the petitioner should be required to face trial.
