MUNSHIRAM versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 09-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
847
MUNSHIRAM
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 515-516 of 2018)
APRIL 09, 2018
[N. V. RAMANA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Scope of –
Quashing of FIR alleging abetment of suicide – FIR lodged against
respondents by the father of the deceased alleging that his daughter-
in-law and her family harassed his son and the entire family which
ultimately led him committing suicide – As per the FSL report, the
handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present in the
suicide note had similarities – High Court quashed the FIR on the
ground that the alleged offence of abetment of suicide was not made
out – On appeal, held: s.482 has to be utilized cautiously while
quashing the FIR – In the instant case, High Court prematurely
quashed the FIR – The court abridged the investigation which
needed to ascertain certain factual assertions made in the FIR
concerning the existence or non-existence of any prior mental
condition of the deceased prior to the commission of suicide – Since,
the enquiry was pending and there were aspects which required
investigation, impugned order is set aside –  Investigating Authorities
directed to complete investigation – Penal Code 1860 – s.306 –
Investigation.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has prematurely quashed the
FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the Police.
This court in a catena of cases has quashed FIR only after it comes
to a conclusion that continuing investigation in such cases would
only amount to abuse of the process. The FSL report categorically
states that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting
as present in the suicide note has similarities. The enquiry was
pending and there are aspects which may require investigation,
the High Court erred in quashing the FIR at the threshold itself
without allowing the investigation to proceed. The reasons
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 847
847
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
provided under the impugned judgment concerning certain factual
assertions made by the Respondents as to the condition of the
deceased and reasons for committing suicide cannot be accepted
because acceptance of the said would not be in consonance with
the settled jurisprudence under Section 482 of CrPC. The
investigative authorities are directed to complete the investigation
with promptness and to take it to its logical conclusion.  [Paras
11, 12, 13 and 15][851-E-G; 853-A-B, D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 515-516 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.04.2015 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S. B. Criminal
Misc. Petitions Nos. 2372 of 2014 and 3508 of 2014.
Manish K. Bishnoi, Devansh Srivastava, Ms. Ila Haldia, Advs.
for the Appellant.
R. S. Suri, Sr. Adv., Pashupati Nath Razdan, Mirza Kayesh Begg,
Milind Kumar, Varun Khanna (For Avinash Kumar), Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order,
dt. 15.04.2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2372
of 2014 and 3508 of 2014, wherein the High Court quashed the FIR No.
318 of 2013 filed under Section 306 of IPC.
3. Before we analyse the case at hand, it would be necessary to
observe the facts of this case which gave rise to the aforesaid FIR. The
deceased son of the Appellant herein (Brijesh Singh) got married to
Respondent no. 2 - wife (Khushboo) on 10.2.2008. From the aforesaid
wedlock, the couple were blessed with a male child on 29.10.2009. It is
to be noted that the wife on previous occasions had filed multiple
complaints against her husband which were ultimately compromised.
Moreover, the husband had also filed a complaint dt. 13.7.2010 alleging
atrocities committed by her and her family on the deceased and his
family. On 7.03.2013, Respondent- wife instituted another proceeding
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
against the deceased. It is alleged that the deceased was under a constant
fear of arrest and harassment because of false implication in criminal
case. Thereafter a compromise is said to have been entered into between
the deceased and the respondent - wife, wherein he had promised not to
repeat any of the aforesaid occurrences. Thereafter, Respondent again
filed an FIR No. 152 of 2013 against the deceased 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.