LexSTATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS versus S. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 56 STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS v. S. UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR AND OTHERS (Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of2014) AUGUST 13, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - c Jurisdiction under - Exercise of - Case relating to suicide by a person investigating a murder case as a Chief Investigating Officer and in the suicide note he held respondents-CB/ officers, advocate and magistrate, responsible for the situation - FIR lodged against D respondents for offences punishable ulss. 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 /PC, on basis of the suicide note by the deceased - Quashing of FIR by High Court - Justification of, as regards quashing of offence uls. 306 - Held: Where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then E the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction u/ s. 482 and quash the proceedings - On facts, suicide note really did not state about any continuous conduct of harassment, thus, the High Court was justified in quashing the proceeding - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 306. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It is found from the narration of facts and the material brought on record that it is the suicide note G which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and H cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains 56 STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS v. S. UNNIKRISHNAN 57 NAIRAND OTHERS nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and A it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move B the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that C he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate. [Para 13] [63-H; 64-A-D] 1.2 The suicide note really does not state about any continuous conduct of harassment. In such a situation, the High Court was justified in quashing the proceeding, D for it is an accepted position in law that where no prima facie case is made out against the accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash the proceedings. [Para 18] [67-F-G] E V.P Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Limited and Others 2010 (11) SCR 788 : (2010) 10 sec 361 - relied on. Praveen Pradhan vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another 2012 (8) SCR 1129: (2012) 9 SCC 734 - distinguished. Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal (2005) 2 SCC 659; M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police 2011 (3) SCR 437: (2011) 3 SCC 626; Kishori Lal v. State of M.P 2007 (7) SCR 1051: (2007) 10 SCC 797; Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal 2009 (15) SCR 836: (2010) 1 sec 707 - referred to. F G H 58 A B c D SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. Case Law Reference 2012 (8) SCR 1129 distinguished. Para 17 (2005) 2 sec 659 referred to. Para 9 2011 (3) SCR 437 referred to. Para 9 2007 (7) SCR 1051 referred to. Para 11 2009 (15) SCR 836 referred to. Para 12 2010 (11) SCR 788 relied on. Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2086 of 2014 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2012 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. No. 3688 of 2012 L. Nageshwara Rao, Ramesh Babu M.R., Abdul Rashed for the Appellants. Prashant Bhushan, Govindjee, 0. Kuttan, P. K. Dey, T.A. E Khan, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The seminal question that emerges for consideration in this appeal is whether the High F Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the F.l.R. lodged against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the impugned order dated G 141h December, 2012. 2. At the outset, we must st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.