2021 (8) TMI 1439 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reinstates criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC after quashing improper evidence evaluation

Saranya Versus Bharathi and Another

SC allowed appeal and set aside HC order that quashed criminal proceedings against respondent for offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC. SC held HC ... Quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420, r/w 34 IPC - HELD THAT:- In the case of Deepak [2019 (3) TMI 2090 - SUPREME COURT] after considering the other binding decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [2014 (1) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT]; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu [2017 (2) TMI 1249 - SUPREME COURT]; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) [2009 (8) TMI 1284 - SUPREME COURT], 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 of the evidence recorded the accused chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be convicted or not. 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 - 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 circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2. 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 - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court were:(a) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceedings and chargesheet against respondent no.1 (original accused no.2) under Sections 420, 302 read with Section 109 IPC in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Rs.(b) Whether there existed sufficient material on record at the stage of consideration under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to presume that respondent no.1 had committed the alleged offencesRs.(c) Whether the High Court erred in entering into the merits of the allegations and appreciating the evidence while quashing the chargesheet, contrary to the settled legal principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings at the pre-trial stageRs.(d) Whether the alleged confessional statement and recovery of money from respondent no.1's house, as well as call detail records between accused persons, constituted sufficient grounds for proceeding with the trialRs.(e) Whether the statement recorded from the complainant at the hospital could be treated as a dying declarationRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) & (b): Validity of Quashing the Chargesheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and Sufficiency of Material to Presume Commission of OffenceThe legal framework governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was extensively considered. The Court referred to authoritative precedents, notably the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak, which clarified that at the stage of framing charges or considering quashing applications, the Court's role is limited to determining whether there is a ground for 'presuming' that the accused has committed the offence. The Court must evaluate the material on record at its face value to see if it discloses the ingredients of the alleged offence, without delving into the appreciation of evidence or merits of the case.The Court observed that the High Court, in the impugned judgment, had exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into the merits of the allegations, assessing the evidence, and forming an opinion on the likelihood of conviction, which is impermissible at this stage. The High Court's quashing of the chargesheet was therefore held to be erroneous.Key evidence against respondent no.1 included the introduction of the co-accused (A1) to the complainant and deceased, the promise of arranging government employment in exchange for money, and the recovery of Rs. 1,20,000 from respondent no.1's residence at her instance. Although the confessional statement was deemed inadmissible in evidence, the recovery made pursuant to it was relevant for the purpose of prima facie assessment. Additionally, call detail records showed multiple calls between A1 and respondent no.1 on the day of the incident, with tower locations corroborating their proximity to the crime scene, indicating possible complicity or aiding and abetting.The Court emphasized that whether the recovered money was the same as that paid by the complainant and deceased was a matter for trial, not for consideration at the quashing stage. Similarly, the source of the recovered money required explanation by the accused during trial.Issue (c): Appropriateness of High Court's Approach in Quashing ProceedingsThe Court reiterated the settled principle that quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is an exceptional remedy and should be exercised sparingly. The High Court's jurisdiction is not to conduct a mini-trial or to weigh evidence but to ensure that the proceedings do not manifestly abuse the process of law or are otherwise unsustainable. The Court found that the High Court ignored crucial material collected during investigation and improperly evaluated the evidence on merits, thereby misapplying the law.Issue (d): Admissibility and Weight of Confessional Statement, Recovery, and Call DetailsThe confessional statement of respondent no.1 was acknowledged as inadmissible in evidence; however, the Court noted that the recovery of money at her instance was a relevant circumstance. The Court distinguished the evidentiary value of the confessional statement from the fact of recovery, which could be independently proved and explained during trial.Regarding call detail records, the Court accepted the prosecution's submission that multiple calls between A1 and respondent no.1 on the day of the incident, with location data placing them near the crime scene, constituted material that raised a prima facie case against respondent no.1. The Court rejected the defense argument that mere telephonic communication was insufficient to implicate respondent no.1, emphasizing the contextual relevance of timing and location.Issue (e): Treatment of Complainant's Statement as Dying DeclarationThe complainant's statement recorded at the hospital shortly after the incident was initially treated as a dying declaration. However, it was noted that the complainant survived and later modified certain details, such as the amount of money paid. The Court observed that the statement's status as a dying declaration was questionable, but this issue was not determinative for the present appeal. The veracity and evidentiary weight of the statement would be matters for trial.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'At the stage of framing of charges, the Court is required to consider the material on record only with a view to find out if there is a ground for presuming that the accused had committed the offence. The Court is not required to appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits or to find out on the basis of evidence whether the accused is likely to be convicted or not.''In the facts and circumstances of the case, when there is ample material to show at least a prima facie case against the accused, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.''Quashing the chargesheet against the accused is not justified when the High Court has ignored material emerged during investigation and entered into appreciation of evidence which is impermissible at this stage.''The recovery of Rs. 1,20,000 at the instance of the accused, even if the confessional statement is inadmissible, is a circumstance to be considered during trial and cannot be a ground for quashing the proceedings.''Call detail records showing communication between accused persons in proximity to the time and place of offence constitute sufficient material to proceed against the accused.'Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the chargesheet and directed the trial court to proceed further in accordance with law. Observations made were confined to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the trial was to proceed on merits based on evidence.