TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1439
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Vyasarpad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 appellant-complainant 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitted 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. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 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 t....