LexRUKMINI NARVEKAR versus VIJAYA SATARDEKAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 271
tr'
'
RUKMINl NARVEKAR
A
v.
VIJAYA SATARDEKAR & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1576-1577 of 2008)
OCTOBER 3,. 2008
B
"
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND ALTAMAS KABIR, JJ.]
----~
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- ss.227, 482 - Con-
stitution of India, 1950 - ArticltJ 226 - Framing of charges -
Evidence to be considered by the Court while framing of c
charges and taking cognizance of offence - Per Katju, J: Held:
Ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court
while framing of the charge - However, in very rare and ex-
ceptional cases when some defence material when shown to
the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that prosecu-
D
"'
tion version was totally absurd or preposterous then the Court
..___,,
can look into it - Per Kabir, J: There is no scope for the ac-
cused to produce any evidence in support of his defence at
the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are
indicated in s.227 CrP.C. can be taken into consideration by
E
Magistrate at that stage - However, in a proceeding taken there-
~ from under s.482 CrP.C., Court is free to consider material
that may be produced on behalf of the accused - In the in-
,,.
stant case, there is a/legation of fraud - By the Court: Prima r
,;,
facie case is made out against accused no. 1 - Not a fit case
for quashing proceedings - As against the accused no. 2, no F
--1
material to show that she was involved in the fraud committed
by accused no. 1- Hence prima facie case not made out
against her - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409, 420.
The complainant-appellant lodged an FIR under G
ss.409 and 420 IPC, alleging that 'RS', the accused No.1
_... _,
who was an advocate took signatures of complainant on
a Power of Attorney falsely representing that it was meant
for enabling him to appear in court case in respect of cer-
271
H
272
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 14 S.C.R.
A
tain properties. The Power of Attorney was used by ac-
("I
cused for selling the property to his wife, 'VS' the other
accused. The said property belonged to the complainant.
Charge sheet was filed against both the accused. There-
after, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged in the
B charge sheet and process was issued.
Accused-respondents filed revision which was dis-
-~
missed. Against that order a writ petition was filed. High
Court allowed the writ petition relying upon the evidence
of one 'ON' in a Civil Suit.
c
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appel-
lant that High Court ought not have relied on the evidence
in the Civil Suit for quashing the criminal case; that at the
time of framing of the charges only the material produced
D by the prosecution side could be looked into by the Court
and the material produced by the defence cannot be
Y.·
looked into.
\,-..--
Respondent contended that the said evidence could
have been relied upon on the facts of the instant case for
E quashing the criminal proceedings.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Katju, J.:
..
F
1. The allegations in the FIR if treated to be correct
I'
prima facie made out an offence against the respondent,
' t--
'RS'. [Para 12] [279,C]
2. The evidence of 'ON' in the Civil Suit was a very
detailed one and some contradictory statements ap-
G peared to have been given by him e.g. that the amount
was paid by 'RS' as a loan, and this contradicted the ver-
sion that the money was paid as a sale consideration. In
~
the judgment of the Civil S~it, it was h~ld that undue influ-
ence could not. be ,ruled out. In these circumstances it
H cannot be said that at this stage the proceedings in the
RUKMINI NARVEKAR v. VIJAYA SATARDEKAR
273
ILlf
& ORS.
_,
)>
i
criminal case were totally ma/a fide and with ulterior mo-
A
tive. [Para 14] [279,H; 280,A-B]
3. The pleas which the respondent 'RS' took before
the High court could be taken by him at the time of the
trial, and it would not be proper to pre-empt the criminal
B
proceeding at this stage. Serious allegations were made
against him in the FIR. The r~lation of a lawyer and his
-._,
client is like a fiduciary relationship, and the lawyer has
to act in the interest of his client. However, it was alleged
in the FIR that 'RS' deceived the complainant and her hus-
band. These are matters which the trial court in the crimi- c
nal case should look into. However, this was not a fit case
for quashing of the criminal proceedings against 'RS' in
exercise of the poweExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.