Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 440 (HP)

Charanjeet Singh v. State of H. P.

2019-04-23

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. The petitioners have sought quashing of proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2018, titled as State vs. Charanjeet Singh and others, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mandi on the ground that no case is instituted against the petitioners under Sections 306 and 34 of the IPC. 2. It is averred that petitioner No. 6, who is the real sister of petitioner No. 1, married to one Shri Ram Saran son of Punnu Ram for the last 13 years. The relationship between them was strained to the extent that not only they were not talking to each other but were also not sharing food and maintaining marital relations. Ram Saran alongwith family members and relatives including respondent No. 2 Shiv Ram had been continuously harassing petitioner No. 6 mentally and physically for the last 12 years. This compelled the mother of petitioner No. 6 to register FIR No. 229 of 2016 against Ram Saran (husband of petitioner No. 6) on 25.08.2016 under Sections 498A, 354A, 323 and 34 IPC at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. 3. It is further averred that the deceased Ram Saran was a man of feeble mind and weak heart and, therefore, must have got scared of the contemplated police interrogation in the aforesaid FIR and due to feeling of guilt, anguish and frustration, he took the extreme steps of committing suicide for which the petitioners cannot be held responsible in any manner. 4. It is further averred that with a view to vengeance the respondent has lodged a false FIR No. 235 of 2016, dated 30.08.2016, at Police Station Balh, District Mandi, H.P. under Sections 304 and 34 IPC against the petitioners wherein the police after completion of investigation has filed charge-sheet against the petitioners and the case was fixed for consideration of charge on 06.07.2018. 5. The main ground seeking quashing of these criminal proceedings is that even if the FIR alongwith accompanying documents are taken to be gospel truth, even then, no case is made out against the petitioner and, therefore, the same should be quashed. 6. The prayer made by the petitioners had not only been opposed by the State, but also by respondent No. 2 on the ground that since prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. 6. The prayer made by the petitioners had not only been opposed by the State, but also by respondent No. 2 on the ground that since prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 7. While dealing with the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings at the stage of issuance of process or at the stage of committal, or at the stage of framing of charges that is to say before the commencement of actual trial, in light of material placed on record by the accused, the Honble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 , observed as under:- 28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/ complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:- 30.1 Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2 Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. 30.3 Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4 Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it needs to be noticed that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners not only in the FIR but also in the statements recorded during the course of investigation, which prima facie make out a case under Section 306 of the IPC. 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, it needs to be noticed that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners not only in the FIR but also in the statements recorded during the course of investigation, which prima facie make out a case under Section 306 of the IPC. It has come on record that the deceased had earlier been threatened that, in case, his wife Kuldeep Kaur makes any complaint regarding beating by the deceased, then they would remove his intestine and some of the accused had threatened the deceased that they would put him in a sack and kill him. The deceased even complained about being harassed by his sisters-in-law (sisters of his wife). 9. I need not set out the other allegations against the petitioners that have been surfaced during the course of investigation, lest it causes prejudice to the petitioners. Suffice it to say that from bare reading of FIR as also the material collected during the course of investigation, it cannot be held that no case under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC is made out against the petitioners. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case has relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659 2. Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and another (2009) 1 SCC 554 . 3. State of Kearala and others vs. Unnikrishnan Nair and others (2015) 9 SCC 639 . 11. In addition to the above, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the following judgments of this Court:- 1. Cr.A. No. 412 of 2011 - State of H.P. vs. Mange Ram, decided on 05.03.2018. 2. Cr.R. No. 327 of 2017 - Pradeep Kumar vs. State of H.P., decided on 14.05.2018, 2018 Cr. LJ 3513 : 2018 (2) SLC 731. 12. And lastly he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 637 of 2017, Smt. Rakhi Rajkumar Giri vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 05.02.2019. 13. This Court will now proceed to determine as to whether any of these cases, in fact, are applicable to the instant case. 14. 12. And lastly he relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in Criminal Application (APL) No. 637 of 2017, Smt. Rakhi Rajkumar Giri vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided on 05.02.2019. 13. This Court will now proceed to determine as to whether any of these cases, in fact, are applicable to the instant case. 14. In Netai Dutta vs. State of West Bengal, 2005 (2) SCC 659 , it was clearly noted by the Honble Supreme Court that the deceased had left behind a suicide note wherein except for referring to the name of the appellant therein at two places there was no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant therein was alleged to have committed any willful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide. In fact, apart from the suicide note, there was no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant therein had in any way been harassing the deceased. It was then the Honble Supreme Court held that the case registered against the appellant was without any factual foundation and even the contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. 15. In Sonti Rama Krishna vs. Sonti Shanti Sree and Anr. 2009 (1) SCC 554 , it was noticed that the complaint had been filed after about two and half months of the alleged incident and the only explanation offered was that the police had not registered the complaint. There was no suicide note in that case and the only allegations against the accused therein was that the deceased was termed to be bad and ugly man. In addition thereto, the Honble Supreme Court categorically found that there were different versions of the death given by the persons examined during investigation. 16. In State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others 2015 (9) SCC 639 , it was the suicide note, which form the fulcrum of the allegations and on plain reading of the same, the Honble Supreme Court found it difficult to hold that there had been any abetment by the respondents. The note except saying that the respondents therein compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contained nothing else. The note except saying that the respondents therein compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contained nothing else. It was found, as a matter of fact, that respondents therein were inferior in rank and therefore, it was surprising that such a thing could happen. In addition thereto, the Honble Supreme Court found the allegations against the accused to be really vague. It was in this background that the proceedings under Section 306 IPC were quashed against the accused therein. 17. Adverting to the judgments delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Mange Rams case (supra), it would be noticed that this case emanated from a judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court and it was after evaluating the evidence on record, this Court came to a categoric conclusion that an offence under Section 306 has not been made out. However, this is not the fact situation obtaining in this case as the case is still at the chargesheet stage. 18. Now, adverting to the Pradeep Kumars case (supra), it was after taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that this Court upheld the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, whereby he had discharged the accused vis-a-vis an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 19. Lastly, adverting to the Bombay High Court decision in Smt. Rakhi Rajkumar Giris case (supra), the Honble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court came to a categoric conclusion that on a bare perusal of the FIR, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that the applicants therein had anywhere abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It has further came to the conclusion that the statements on record also did not support the case of the prosecution involving the applicant in an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. 20. It is, thus, clear that none of the judgments as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of any assistance to him and are clearly distinguishable and, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.