LexAMIT KAPOOR versus RAMESH CHANDER & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.