# AMIT KAl?OOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR

- **Citation:** [2012] 7 S.C.R. 988
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-09-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amit-kal-oor-v-ramesh-chander-anr-28399
- **Pages:** 45

## Headnote

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
C
ss. 397 and 482 -
Extent and scope of powers
exercisable by High Court u/s. 397 independently or read with
s. 482 - Explained - Exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 397 ors. 482
or together, for quashing of charge - Principles culled out -
Maxim, 'qnando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id
o quo res ipsa non protest.
s. 397 - Revision before High Court challenging the
framing of charges against accused for offences punishable
u/ss.306 and 448 /PC - High Court quashing the charge for
E offence punishable u/s. 306 - Held: As per the suicide note
left by deceased and the statement of her son, she committed
suicide and the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out
at this stage, but is obviously subject to th.e final view that the
court may take upon trial - One very serious averment that
F was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally
frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the
ground floor of her property, and refused to vacate the same
- There could be cases where the circumstances created by
the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and
finds it difficult to continue existence -
Grabbing of the
G property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement
made by the son of the deceased, as well as getting blank
papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the
circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the
H
988
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
989
deceased - Court is not expected to form a firm opinion at A
this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the
presumption referred to u/s 228 of the Code - High Court
could not have appreciated or evaluated the record and
documents filed with it - It was not the stage - Order of High
Court quashing the charge framed for offence punishable u/
B
s. 306 /PC set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 107 and 306.
ss. 227 and 228 - Discharge and framing of charge -
Explained.
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 107, 108 and 306 - Ingredients - Explained.
c
An FIR was registered against the appellant and
another on 5.12.2007 in respect of the suicide committed
0
by the deceased on 4.12.2007. The prosecution case as
revealed from the suicide note left by the deceased and
the statement of her son was that on account of the
husband of the deceased falling ill and there being a loss
in the family business, the family decided to sell two of
its properties through the appellant, who was a property
E
dealer. In the process, the appellant obtained her
signatures on some blank papers. Subsequently, the
appellant was successful in occupying a portion of the
residential house of the deceased initially for a few days,
but later when he was asked to vacate, he refused stating
F
that it was his house as he had paid a sum of
Rs.24,00,000/- for it. The accused and his son were stated
to have threatened the deceased and his family to vacate
the house or else they would ruin them and that the
deceased would get rid of this only after her death. This
G
was followed by the appellant sending a legal notice
dated 1.12.2007 to the deceased, which was received by
her on 3.12.2007. The following morning she committed
suicide. The trial court framed charges against the
accused for offences punishable u/ss 306 and 448 IPC.
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A However, in a criminal revision filed by the appellant, the
High Court quashed the charge for offence punishable
u/s 306 IPC.
In the instant appeal filed by the son of the deceased,
B the issue for consideration before the Court was the
extent and scope of the powers exercisable by the High
Court u/s 397 independently or read with s. 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding quashing of
a charge framed by the trial court.
C
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Framing of a charge is an exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of s.228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless the accused is
0 discharged u/s. 227. Under both t

## Text

_Characters 0–39,972 of 86,836. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39972 for what follows._

A
B
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 988
AMIT KAl?OOR
v.
RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1407 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 13, 2012
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973:
C
ss. 397 and 482 -
Extent and scope of powers
exercisable by High Court u/s. 397 independently or read with
s. 482 - Explained - Exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 397 ors. 482
or together, for quashing of charge - Principles culled out -
Maxim, 'qnando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur id
o quo res ipsa non protest.
s. 397 - Revision before High Court challenging the
framing of charges against accused for offences punishable
u/ss.306 and 448 /PC - High Court quashing the charge for
E offence punishable u/s. 306 - Held: As per the suicide note
left by deceased and the statement of her son, she committed
suicide and the abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out
at this stage, but is obviously subject to th.e final view that the
court may take upon trial - One very serious averment that
F was made in the suicide note was that the deceased was totally
frustrated when the accused persons took possession of the
ground floor of her property, and refused to vacate the same
- There could be cases where the circumstances created by
the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and
finds it difficult to continue existence -
Grabbing of the
G property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement
made by the son of the deceased, as well as getting blank
papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the
circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the
H
988
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
989
deceased - Court is not expected to form a firm opinion at A
this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the
presumption referred to u/s 228 of the Code - High Court
could not have appreciated or evaluated the record and
documents filed with it - It was not the stage - Order of High
Court quashing the charge framed for offence punishable u/
B
s. 306 /PC set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 107 and 306.
ss. 227 and 228 - Discharge and framing of charge -
Explained.
PENAL CODE, 1860:
ss. 107, 108 and 306 - Ingredients - Explained.
c
An FIR was registered against the appellant and
another on 5.12.2007 in respect of the suicide committed
0
by the deceased on 4.12.2007. The prosecution case as
revealed from the suicide note left by the deceased and
the statement of her son was that on account of the
husband of the deceased falling ill and there being a loss
in the family business, the family decided to sell two of
its properties through the appellant, who was a property
E
dealer. In the process, the appellant obtained her
signatures on some blank papers. Subsequently, the
appellant was successful in occupying a portion of the
residential house of the deceased initially for a few days,
but later when he was asked to vacate, he refused stating
F
that it was his house as he had paid a sum of
Rs.24,00,000/- for it. The accused and his son were stated
to have threatened the deceased and his family to vacate
the house or else they would ruin them and that the
deceased would get rid of this only after her death. This
G
was followed by the appellant sending a legal notice
dated 1.12.2007 to the deceased, which was received by
her on 3.12.2007. The following morning she committed
suicide. The trial court framed charges against the
accused for offences punishable u/ss 306 and 448 IPC.
H
990
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A However, in a criminal revision filed by the appellant, the
High Court quashed the charge for offence punishable
u/s 306 IPC.
In the instant appeal filed by the son of the deceased,
B the issue for consideration before the Court was the
extent and scope of the powers exercisable by the High
Court u/s 397 independently or read with s. 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding quashing of
a charge framed by the trial court.
C
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Framing of a charge is an exercise of
jurisdiction by the trial court in terms of s.228 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless the accused is
0 discharged u/s. 227. Under both these provisions, the
court is required to consider the 'record of the case' and
documents submitted therewith and, after hearing the
parties, may either discharge the accused or where it
appears to the court and in its opinion there is ground
E for presuming that the accused has committed an
offence, it shall frame the charge. Once the facts and
ingredients of the Section exist, then the court would be
right in presuming that there is ground to proceed against
the accused and frame the charge accordingly. This
presumption is not a presumption of law as such. The
F satisfaction of the court in relation to the existence of
constituents of an offence and the facts leading to that
offence is a sine qua non for exercise of such
jurisdiction. It may even be weaker than a prima facie
case. There is a fine distinction between the language of
G ss. 227 and 228. Section 227 is the expression of a
definite opinion; whereas the judgment of the court u/s.
228 is tentative. At the initial stage of framing of a charge,
the court is concerned not with proof but with a strong
suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
H
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
991
which, if put to trial, could prove him guilty. All that the
A
court has to see is that the material on record and the
facts would be compatible with the innocence of the
accused or not. The final test of guilt is not to be applied
at that stage. Thus, to say that at the stage of framing of
charge, the court should form an opinion that the
B
accused is certainly guilty of committing an offence is an
approach which is impermissible in terms of s. 228 of the
Code. [paras 10 and 11] [1015-D-G; 1016-D]
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 -
C
referred to
1.2. The legislature in its wisdom has used the
expression 'there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed an offence'. This has an inbuilt
element of presumption once the ingredients of an
D
offence with reference to the allegations made are
satisfied, the court would not doubt the case of the
prosecution unduly and extend its jurisdiction to quash
the charge in haste.The word 'presume' in this context
indicates that the truth of the matter has to come out
E
when the prosecution evidence is led, the witnesses are
cross-examined by the defence, the incriminating material
and evidence is put to the accused in terms of s.313 of
the Code and then the accused is provided an
opportunity to lead defence, if any. It is only upon
F
completion of such steps that the trial concludes with the
court forming its final opinion and delivering its judgment.
[para 22] [1027-F-H; 1028-A-B]
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors. (1996)
4 SCC 659-referred to
G
2.1. The inherent as well as the revisional jurisdiction
should be exercised cautiously. If the jurisdiction u/s 482
of the Code in relation to quashing of an FIR is
circumscribed by the factum and caution, in that event,
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A the revisional jurisdiction, particularly, while dealing with
framing of a charge, has to be even more limited. Section
397 of the Code vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior court for the
purposes of satisfying itself as to the legality and
B regularity of any proceedings or order made in a case.
The object of this provision is to set right a patent defect
or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a wellfounded error and it may not be appropriate for the court
to scrutinize the order, which upon the face of it bears a
c token of careful consideration and appear to be in
accordan~e with law. Where the court is dealing with the
question as to whether the charge has been framed
properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it
may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional
0 jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the
stated categories. Even framing of charge is a much
advanced stage in the proceedings under the Code. The
revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited
one and cannot' be exercised in a routine manner. One
E of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against
an interim or interlocutory order. The court has to keep
in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself
should not lead to injustice ex facie. [Para 8-10) [1015-E;
1013-A-C; E-G]
F
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha &
Ors. (1982) 1 sec 561.
State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp.
(1) sec 335
G
2.2. On the other hand, s. 482 is based upon the
H
maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder videtur
id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law gives
anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without
which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
993
confers very wide power on the High Court to do justice
A
and to ensure that the process of court is not permitted
to be abused. Inherent power u/s 482 being an
extraordinary and residuary power, it is inapplicable in
regard to matters which are specifically provided for
under other provisions of the Code. Normally the court
B
may not invoke its power u/s 482 where a party could
have availed of the remedy available u/s 397 itself. The
inherent powers u/s 482, are of a wide magnitude and are
not as limited as the power u/s 397. Section 482 can be
invoked where the order in question is neither an c
interlocutory order within the meaning of s.397(2) nor a
final order in the strict sense. The distinction between a
final and an interlocutory order is well known in law. The
orders which will be free from the bar of s.397(2) would
be orders which are not purely interlocutory but at the
0
same time are less than a final disposal. They should be
the orders which do determine some right and still are not
rendering the court functus officio of the lis. The
provisions of s. 482 are pervasive. It should not subvert
legal interdicts written into the same Code but, inherent
E
powers of the High Court unquestionably have to be read
and construed as free of restriction. The use of
extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court
under this section are, however, required to be reserved
as far as possible for extraordinary cases. Where the
factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the
courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to
quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or
two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear
F
to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance to the
requirements of the offence. [paras 12 -14 and 20) [1018G
F-G; 1019-A-C, G-H; 1020-A-C-D; 1026-G]
Raj Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1980
SC 258: (1980) 1 SCC 43; Dinesh Dutt Joshi v. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 570; Janata Dal v. H. S.
H
994
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Chowdhary & Ors. (1992) 4 SCC 305; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao
Scindia supra State of Bihar & Anr. v. Shri P.P. Sharma &
Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260 and M.N. Damani v. S.K. Sinha &
Ors. AIR 2001 SC 2037 - referred to.
8
2.4. Upon objective analysis of various judgments of
this Court, some of the principles to be considered for
proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to
quashing of charge ~ither in exercise of jurisdiction u/s
397 or s. 482 of the Code or together, as the case may
C be, are culled out as follows:
D
E
F
G
H
(1) Though there are no limits of the powers of the
High Court u/s 482 of the Code but the more the
power, the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The power of
quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the
charge framed in terms of s. 228 of the Code should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection
and that too in the rarest of rare cases. [Para 19]
[1022-G; 1023-A-C]
(2) The Court should apply the test as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made from the record
of the case and the documents submitted therewith
prima facie establish the offence or not. If the
allegations are so patently absurd and inherently
improbable that no prudent person can ever reach
such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients
of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court
may interfere. [Para 19] [1023-D-E]
(3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in
conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge
or quashing of charge. [Para 19] [1023-F]
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
995
(4) Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
A
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and
for correcting some grave error that might be
committed by the subordinate courts even in such
cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at
the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise
B
of its inherent powers. [Para 19) [1023-G-H; 1024-A]
(5) Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any
of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in
force to the very initiation or institution and
C
continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a
bar is intended to provide specific protection to an
accused. [Para 19) [1024-A, BJ
(6) The court has a duty to balance the freedom of a
person and the right of the complainant or D
prosecution to investigate and prosecute the
offender. [Para 19) [1024-C]
(7) The process of the court cannot be permitted to
be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
[Para 19) [1024-C)
(8) Where the allegations made and as they appeared
from the record and documents annexed therewith
E
to predominantly give rise and constitute a 'civil
wrong' with no 'element of criminality' and does not
F
satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the
Court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even
in such cases, the Court would not embark upon the
critical analysis of the evidence. [Para 19) [1024-D-E]
G
(9) It cannot examine the facts, evidence and
materials on record to determine whether there is
sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned
primarily with the allegations taken as a whole
H
996
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is
it an abuse of the process of court leading to
injustice. [Para 19] [1024-F-G]
(10) It is neither necessary nor is the court called
upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate
evidence collected by the investigating agencies to
find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
[Para 19] [1024-H; 1025-A]
(11) Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and
also amount to an offence, merely because a civil
claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal
complaint cannot be maintained. [Para 19] [1025-AB]
The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a
legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and
ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the court
will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such
proceedings in exercise of its inherent or original
jurisdiction. [para 18] [1022-E]
Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (2006)
6 sec 736 - relied on
(12) In exercise of its jurisdiction u/s 228 and/or u/s
482, tile Court cannot take into consideration external
materials given by an accused for reaching the
conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that
there was possibility of his acquittal. The court has
to consider the record and documents annexed with
by the prosecution. [Para 19] [1025-C]
(13) Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule
of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is
even broadly satisfied, the court should be more
inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather
than its quashing at that initial stage. The court is not
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
997
expected to marshal the records with a view to decide
A
admissibility and reliability of the documents or
records but is an opinion formed prima facie. [Para
19) [1025-0-E)
(14) Where the charge-sheet, report u/s 173(2) of the
8
Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the
Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a
charge. [Para 19) [1025-F]
(15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the
court finds that it would amount to abuse of process
C
of the Court or that interest of justice favours,
otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to
be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and
substantial justice for administration of which alone,
the courts exist. [Para 19) [1025-G-H]
D
State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Guha &
Ors. AIR 1982 SC 949; Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia & Anr.
v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 709;
Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 892; Mrs.
E
Rupan Deol Bajaj & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Ors. AIR
1996 SC 309; G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
AIR 2000 SC 754; Ajay Mitra v. State of MP. AIR 2003 SC
1069); Mis. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial
Magistrate & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 128; State of U.P. v. O.P.
Sharma(1996) 7 SCC 705; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. s.
Bangarappa & Ors. (1995) 4 SCC 41; Zundu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharafu/ Haque & Ors. [AIR 2005 SC
F
9]; Mis. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Mis.
Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1869; Shakson
Belthissor v. State of Kera/a & Anr. (2009) 14 SCC 466;
G
V. V.S. Rama Sharma & Ors. v. State of UP. & Ors. (2009) 7
SCC 234; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna & Anr. v. Peddi
Ravindra Babu & Anr. (2009) 11 SCC 203; Sheo Nandan
Paswan v. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1987 SC 877; State of
Bihar & Anr. v. P.P. Sharma & Anr. AIR 1991 SC 1260;
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 7 S.C.R.
A Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC
17; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh & Anr. (2001) 8 SCC 645;
Savita v. State of Rajasthan (2005) 12 SCC 338; and S. M.
Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2001) 7 SCC 659 - referred
to.
B
3.1. In the instant case, what weighed with the High
Court was that.firstly, it was an abuse of the process of
court and, secondly, it was a case of civil nature and that
the facts, as stated, would not constitute an offence u/s
306 read with s.107 IPC. The High Court itself recorded,
C that 'this aspect of the matter will get unravelled only after
a full-fledged trial'. Once the High Court itself was of the
opinion that clear facts and correctness of the allegations
made can be examined only upon full trial, there was no
need for it to quash the charge u/s 306 at that stage.
D Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial
court forms in terms of s.228 which is subject to final
culmination of the proceedings. [para 21) [1027-C-E]
3.2. The ingredients of s. 306 IPC are that a person
E commits suicide and somebody alone abets commission
of such suicide which renders him liable for punishment.
Both these ingredients appear to exist in the instant case
in terms of the language of s.228 of the Code, subject to
trial. The deceased committed suicide and as per the
F suicide note left by her and the statement of her son, the
abetment by the accused cannot be ruled out at this stage,
but is obviously subject to the final view that the court
may take upon trial. One very serious averment that was
made in the suicide note was that the deceased was
G totally frustrated when the accused persons took
possession of the ground floor of her property, and
refused to vacate the same. [para 22) [1028-D-F]
H
3.3. The High Court has also noticed that a perusal
of the suicide note brings to fore the fact that the
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
999
petitioner-accused is not only named but his illegal
A
occupation of the house of the deceased is stated to be
one of the primary reasons for the deceased in
committing the suicide. The statement of the son of the
deceased is also on the same line. Once ss. 107 and 306
IPC are read together, then the court has to merely
B
examine as to whether apparently the person could be
termed as causing abetment of a thing. An abetter u/s 108
is a person who abets an offence. It includes both the
person who abets either the commission of an offence
or the commission of an act which would be an offence. c
Explanation (1) to. S. 107 has been worded very widely.
[para 24) [1029-C-H; 1030-A]
Goura Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2003) 12 SCC
469 - referred to
3.4. A person making wilful misrepresentation or
wilful concealment of material fact and such person
voluntarily causing or procuring or attempting to cause
or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the
doing of that thing. According to the record, the accused
had made a wrong statement that he had paid a sum of
Rs.24,00,000/- for purchase of the property and the
property belonged to him. Whether it was a
misrepresentation of the accused and was an attempt to
harass the deceased and her family which ultimately led
to her suicide is a question to be examined by the court.
It would have been more appropriate exercise of
jurisdiction by the High Court, if it would have left the
matter to be determined by the Court upon complete trial.
[para 25) [1030-G-H; 1031-A-C]
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC
618 - Cited
Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of
D
E
F
G
Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 - referred to
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
3.5. There could be cases where the circumstances
created by the accused are ~uch that a person feels
totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue
existence. Husband of the deceased was a paralysed
person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their
B property. They had great faith in the accused and were
heavily relying on him as their property transactions were
transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the
property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement
made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank
c papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the
circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the
deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm
opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would
evoke the presumption referred to u/s 228 of the Code.
D
[para 26] [1032-A-D]
3.6. Merely because there was civil transaction
between the parties would not by itself alter the status of
the allegations constituting the criminal offence. This was
not a case where thrillegations were so predominately
E of a civil nature that it would have eliminated criminal
intent and liability. On the contrary, it is a fact and, in fact,
is not even disputed that the deceased committed suicide
and left a suicide note. May be, the accused are able to
prove their non- involvement in inducing or creating
F circumstances which compelled the deceased to commit
suicide but that again is a matter of trial. [para 22] [10288-D]
3.7. There also appears to be some contradiction in
G the judgment of the High Court primarily for the reason
that if charge u/s 306 is to be quashed and the accused
is not to be put to trial for this offence, then where would
be the question of trying them for an offence of criminal
trespass in terms of s.448 IPC based on some facts,
which has been permitted by the High Court. Besides,
H
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
1001
The High Court could not have appreciated or evaluated
A
the record and documents filed with it. It was not the
stage. [para 22] (1028-H; 1029-A-B]
3.8. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that
the finding returned by the High Court suffers from an
B
error of law. It has delved into the field of appreciation and
evaluation of the evidence which is beyond the
jurisdiction, either revisional or inherent, of the High
Court u/s 397 and 482 of the Code. The order of the High
Court is set aside. The trial court shall proceed with the c
trial in accordance with law. [para 27-28] (1032-E-F]
Case Law Reference:
(1977) 4 sec 39
Referred to.
Para 11
(1982) 1 sec 561
Referred to.
Para 9
D
1992 Supp. (1) sec 335 Referred to.
Para 9
[AIR 1980 SC 258:
(1980) 1 sec 43
Referred to.
Para 13
E
(2001) 8 sec 570
Referred to.
Para 14
(1992) 4 sec 305
Referred to.
Para 15
(2006) 6 sec 736
Relied on.
Para 18
F
AIR 1982 SC 949
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 1988 SC 709
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 1993 SC 892
Relied on.
Para 19
G
AIR 1996 SC 309
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 2000 SC 754
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 2003 SC 1069]
Relied on.
Para 19
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012) 7 S.C.R.
A
AIR 1988 SC 128
Relied on.
Para 19
(1996) 1 sec 105
Relied on.
Para 19
(1995) 4 sec 41
Relied on.
Para 19
B
[AIR 2005 SC 9]
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 2000 SC 1869
Relied on.
Para 19
(2009) 14 sec 466
Relied on.
Para 19
(2009) 1 sec 234
Relied on.
Para 19
c
(2009) 11 sec 203
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 1987 SC 877
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 1991 SC 1260
Relied on.
Para 19
D
(2001) 2 sec 11
Relied on.
Para 19
(2001) 8 sec 645
Relied on.
Para 19
(2005) 12 sec 338
Relied on.
Para 19
E
c2001) 1 sec 659
Relied on.
Para 19
AIR 1991 SC 1260
Referred to.
Para 20
AIR 2001 SC 2037
Referred to.
Para 20
F
(1996) 4 sec 659
Referred to.
Para 22
[(2003) 12 sec 469
Referred to.
Para 26
(2009) 16 sec 605
Referred to.
Para 26
(2001) 9 sec 618
Referred to.
Para 26
G
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1407 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.08.2009 of the High
H
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
1003
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.
A
277 of 2009.
S.K. Dhingra, M.L. Khattar, Shefali Mitra for the Appellant.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Shailendra Sharma, Anil Katiyar,
Seeraj Bagga, Rajinder Mathur for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
B
2. A question of law that arises more often than not in
C
criminal cases is that of the extent and scope of the powers
exercisable by the High Court under Section 397 independently
or read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (for short, the 'Code').
3. The facts as they emerge from the record fall within a
very narrow compass. On 4th December, 2007, the Rajouri
Garden Police Station received information that a woman had
committed suicide at C-224, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi.
Upon making entry under DD No.16A of that date, Sub
Inspector O.P. Manda! commenced investigation and reached
D
E
F
the place of occurrence. The deceased was identified as
Komal Kapoor. Her body was sent for post mortem. The
Investigating Officer recorded the statement of her son Amit
Kapoor and on 5.12.2007 at about 12.15 p.m. an FIR was
registered on the complaint filed by him. This FIR was
registered against Ramesh Chander Sibbal (the accused) and
another, on the basis of the statement of Amit Kapoor and the
suicide note. According to Amit Kapoor, he knew Ramesh
Chander Sibbal for the last 10 years. Father of Amit Kapoor
was running a paint brush business and had purchased property
G
No.C-225, Tagore Garden, Delhi through the said Ramesh
Chander Sibbal. Since the father of Amit Kapoor had fallen ill,
his mother was also looking after the business. However, the
family business suffered acute losses. The family discussed the
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A possibility of selling their moveable and immoveable property
situated at Rohini. The accused persons are stated to have
fraudulently obtained signatures of the deceased in this
connection. In order to get over the financial crises and to meet
their liabilities, the deceased had also discussed the possibility
B of selling another plot owned by the family situated in Bawana
Industrial Area. At that time also, the accused told the
deceased that certain documents have to be executed before
the plot is sold. On this pretext, he again got some papers
signed by them. The accused paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to
c the deceased at the first instance and thereafter a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- for the plot situated in Bawana as against the
market value of Rs.28,00,000/-, with an assurance that the rest
of the amount will be paid after execution of the sale deed.
4. Around the time of Dussehra in 2007, the accused
D approached the deceased claiming that he be given
accommodation on a temporary basis for a period of ten to
twelve days on the ground floor of her house situated at C-224,
Tagore Garden, Delhi on the pretext that his own house was
under renovation. The deceased believing him and keeping the
E relationship in mind, agreed and allowed him to occupy two
rooms on the ground floor. It is alleged that while the deceased
was away at Haridwar, just before the festival of Diwali, the
accused encroached upon one more room in the said house.
When the deceased asked the accused to vacate the said
F premises, he refused and, on the contrary, stated that he had
paid a sum of Rs.24,00,000/- and that it was his house. Not
only this, the accused as well as his son threatened the
deceased and her family to vacate the house or else they would
ruin them. It is also alleged that when the deceased asked the
G accused as to when :;he will get rid of this problem, he is said
to have replied that she could get rid of this only after her death.
This was followed by the accused sending a legal notice dated
1st December, 2007 to the deceased which was received on
3rd December, 2007 in which similar claim was made by the
H accused against the deceased. The trust that she had placed
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
1005
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
upon the accused was totally betrayed by him. This led to the
A
deceased slipping into depression. In face of all these
circumstances, coupled with the threats extended by the
accused persons, the deceased committed suicide on
4.12.2007 at about 7 .30 a.m. by hanging herself from a ceiling
fan, using a scarf (chunni). It may be noticed at this stage, that
B
the deceased had left a suicide note which can appropriately
be reproduced at this stage as under :
"This Ramesh Sibbal, his wife Suman and his son Gaurav.
I am committing suicide for the reason that the aforesaid
C
persons who are residing in our house forcefully, used to
say that he was to do white wash so please allow him to
keep some of his articles. But after some time, when I
came, I saw that the aforesaid person has completely
occupied my house as his own house. When my children
D
objected to his aforesaid act, he said that he was to stay
there only for a period of 04 days and that he would perform
Diwali worship pooja ceremony at his own house but he
did not vacate the house. When I had gone to Haridwar,
he occupied front room of my house as well after giving
E
beatings to my children. I know this person since that day
when he had got my plot of Rohini disposed off. As we both
(husband and wife) had not read those papers (relating to
disposal of our Rohini plot) so this person kept on obtaining
our signatures on the stamp papers relating to our House
F
No. C-224 on the pretext that these papers were required
to execute the lease. My husband was ill and I used to
remain busy in looking after him. Whenever, he came to
us he used to show urgency in taking our signature by
stating that the sale proceed of our plot would be given to
G
us that day itself. He kept on giving payment time to time
to us and we kept on receiving the same.
Written on the top of page 411
This man gave me only a sum of Rs 05 lacs of my plot
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A
situated in Bawana, but he obtained my signature on Rs
15 lacs as I did not read the contents thereof.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
When this man got our Bawana a plot sold, he took the
file from us but I do not know as to what he had done with
that amount. He used to say that he had given us the entire
amount. Whatever amount he gave to us he used to take
in writing on a paper. After giving his amount, when I asked
for the file, he demanded Rs.05 lacs otherwise, he would
reveal it to my daughter that the file was lying with him. He
also threatened me to sign the paper without raising any
objection otherwise, he would get our children grandson
and granddaughter kidnapped. On this, I used to scare and
this man used to succeed in getting the stamp papers
signed by me. When he got our plot of Rohini sold, he
started obtaining my signatures. But at the time when the
plot of Rohini was sold, he told me that the plot situated in
Bawana has been sold and he asked us to accompany
him to sign the papers. Thereafter, he said that the person
with whom he has kept the file was saying to him that he
could take away the file from that person but only in lieu of
keeping papers of some other house with that person.
When this man (suggested) me to keep other file (of
property) in lieu of taking the said file from that person and
this man (also assured me) that he would return those
papers of property to me as and when the plot of Bawana
would be sold. On this, I handed over the file of property
No. C-225 to this man. After that, he told that the plot was
not getting higher price and so he offered us to take some
amount, if required by us urgently whereupon , this man
gave us a sum of Rs. 3 lacs but he kept on taking an
interest at the rate of 10%. This man gave us Rs.5 lacs
earlier and Rs.3 lacs later so he kept on taking an interest
on Rs. 8 lacs. Before Diwali, I gave him a cheque of
Rs.2,50,000/- and also gave a sum of Rs.3 lacs in cash
to his son. Thereafter, I gave a sum of Rs.2 lacs in cash
and his son knows the account of it whose name is
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
1007
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Gaurav. When I gave money, I asked him to give me the
A
written paper as I have returned the as I have returned the
money whereupon, he (Gaurav) said that since he had no
paper with him that time so the same would be returned
to her by his father. This man's son Gaurav and wife
Suman are together involved (in this conspiracy). His son
also used to do my fake signatures. Whenever, I
demanded my file back from him, he used to ask me to
return Rs.15 lacs first. On this, when I asked him as to how
the amount of Rs.5 lacs became to Rs.15 lacs? He replied
B
that it had become Rs.15 lacs including interest thereon. I c
kept on giving him interest because of the fear of my
family. He has also grabbed my entire money which I had
taken on loan basis from somewhere. I kept on giving him
interest only for the reason that since he used to promise
me to return the papers that day itself or on the next day.
D
Written on top of page no.415
He said that the money of Bawana's (plot) has been sent
by his father and he asked me to write down a receipt of
Rs.04 lacs and when I wrote a receipt of it, he said that
E
the money was kept in the motorcycle and he was first
giving me the cash but this man's son did not give me the
said cash. He asked me to sign the papers related to
Bawana's (plot) first and then he would return the paper
as well as the money to me. On reaching the house, I
F
demanded the money and paper from him whereupon he
said that he had the paper written by me and that he would
show that paper to my son and when my son asked him
to return the paper, he replied that he would not return the
paper as his mother had taken a sum of Rs.15 lacs from
G
him. Kindly take it guaranteed that out of aforesaid Rs.15
lacs I have returned a sum of Rs. of Seven and a half lacs
to him. After that, this man's son came to me and said that
his father was saying to give papers of property No.C-225
to you and in lieu thereof he asked me to show him the
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2012] 7 S.C.R.
file of lease. On this, when I started to show him the said
file to him then, this man's son Gaurav said that he was
just giving me the said paper and saying this he took away
the lease file from me and since then, he had not returned
me the said paper. Kindly save my house. Please save
my children from this person. I have not visited any court
to sign. One day these persons crossed all the limits when
his wife said that she was agreed to return all the papers
in lieu of giving a receipt of the same in writing. After that,
they gave me the amount of sale proceeds of Rohini and
Bawana's properties. She brought fake papers which were
related to some other person's property, to me. I saw that
those papers were fake papers and were in English
language and when I showed those papers to someone,
it was found that those papers were not related to my plot.
When I went to this man's house to show him that those
papers were not related to my plot, his wife said that since
there was no electricity in her house that time so they had
given some others property paper to her mistakenly and
that they were just sending their son Gaurav to give me the
correct papers but Gaurav did not come to me till today.
Thereafter, we started receiving threats from Gunda
elements that they would harm us in different ways. I have
no proof of the money returned by me. This man used to
say to my female friends that he would show them after
purchasing my house by hook and crook. He used to
spread rumour in the street that I, Komal have sold out my
house to him and that there were several cases pending
related to that house.
I pray, with folded hands, that keeping in view the illness
of my husband, my house and the papers related thereto
may please be restored to me. This man's wife Suman and
their son Gaurav are most dishonest persons. His wife
Suman used to talk in such an artificial way as she was
telling a truth. One of my sons had died due to cancer and
if I am dishonest to anyone, my rest of both children may
AMIT KAPOOR v. RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
1009
[SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
also die from cancer. You can verify these facts from the
A
residents of the street as to how many houses (families)
has been ruined by this person. This man is supported by
some reputed persons who use to give him money but he
did not return their money. He kept on keeping papers of
our property with him and used to lend our money on
B
interest to other persons. This man intends to grab my
house. My matter may please be decided. This man
Ramesh Sibbal, his wife Suman and son Gaurav may be
punished so that they may not commit such an act with
anyone in future. He kept on threatening me while involving c
my daughter-in-law that he would do this and that. Since
the day this man entered my house, everything has been
ruined by him. I may please be imparted justice.
Sd/- Koma! Kapur
(In English)"
D
5. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, effected
recoveries of the articles from the place of occurrence and
thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon
completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in
E
terms of Section 173(2) of the Code wherein Ramesh Chander
Sibbal was stated as the accused and names of his wife,
Suman Sibbal and son Gaurav Sibbal were shown in Column
No.2. Upon committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
framed charges against the accused under Sections 306 and
F
448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
6. The accused filed a criminal revision being Criminal
Revision No.227 of 2009 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
challenging the order of the trial Court dated 2nd April, 2009,
framing the charge. The High Court vide its judgment dated 13th
G
August, 2009 quashed the charge framed under Section 306
IPC, while permitting the Trial Court to continue the trial in
relation to the offence under Section 448 IPC. It will be useful
to refer to certain findings recorded by the High Court in its
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A judgment dated 13th August, 2009 :
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"3.
In the background of the aforesaid case set up by
the prosecution the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the ingredients of an
offence under Section 306 of the IPC were not
present in the instant case.