SARANYA versus BHARATHI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 24-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
SARANYA
v.
BHARATHI AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2021)
AUGUST 24, 2021.
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Exercise of power
under – Stage of framing of charge – High Court quashed and set
aside the criminal proceedings qua co-accused-respondent no. 1
for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 IPC – Correctness of – Held:
High Court entered into the appreciation of the evidence and
considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely
to be convicted or not – At this stage, while considering the
application u/s.482 Cr.P.C., this is not at all permissible – High Court
was not conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the
jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction
or acquittal – Furthermore, there was ample material to show at
least a prima facie case against respondent no. 1, the High Court
ought not to have quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 –
Order passed by the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal
proceedings for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 qua respondent
no.1 quashed and set aside.
s. 482 – Stage of framing of charge while considering the
discharge application – Principles which the High Court to keep in
mind while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 – Stated.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There is sufficient material on record raising
the strong suspicion against respondent no.1-A2 also. It has been
found that A2-respondent no.1 who was serving in the Secretariat
and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as she
used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she
introduced A1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is
specifically alleged that she said that she could manage to get
the job/employment for the deceased but for that they had to pay.
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 513
513
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
It is true that as per the case of the prosecution and even as per
the statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was
paid to A1. However, during the course of the investigation, an
amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the
house of respondent no. 1-A2 at the instance of A2 herself. The
so-called confessional statement of respondent no.1 is
inadmissible in evidence. However, on the basis of such
statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from
the house of A2- respondent no.1. The other aspect whether the
recovered amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount
which was given by the deceased and the complainant to A1 is a
matter of evidence to be considered during trial. Even the source
of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by the
accused. [Para 8][522-F-H; 523-A-B]
1.2 During the course of the investigation, the investigating
officer has collected very important evidence in the form of call
details between A1 & A2 which are in the proximity of the time of
commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, when respondent no.1 has been
chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109
IPC and when there is ample material to show at least a prima
facie case against respondent no.1-A2, the High Court has
committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire
criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Quashing the chargesheet against the accused is not
justified. The High Court evidently ignored what has emerged
during the course of investigation. The High Court entered into
the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the
basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or
not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while
considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not
exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order
of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have
quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1- original accused
no.2. The judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing
the chargesheet/criminal proceedings for the offences under
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC qua respondent no.1-accused no.2
is quashed and set aside. [Para 9, 10][523-B-F-G]
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2019) 13 SCC
62 : [2019] 2 SCR 1055 – relied on

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