By Sonali
In the Supreme Court of India
| Name of the Case | Rajiv Thapar VS Madan Lal Kapoor |
| Citation | Criminal appeal No.174 of 2013 |
| Date of the case | January 23,2013 |
| Appellant | Rajiv Thapar |
| Respondent | Madan Lal Kapoor |
| Bench/Judge | D.K. Jain and J.S. Khehar, JJ. |
| Statutes/constitution involved | Constitution of India,1950 The Criminal Procedure Code 1973. The Indian Penal Code,1860 The Indian Evidence Act,1872 |
| Important – Sections/Articles | The Constitution Of India,1950- Ar.226 The Criminal Procedure code,1973 -Sec.482,Sec.202,Sec.227 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sec.304-B ,Sec. 498-B,Sec.306, Sec.120-B, Sec.109 The Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Sec.45, Sec.59, Sec.60, |
Abstract
The case in hand is regarding the quashing of the first information report by High Court with the power vested in them by the Constitution of India, 1950 and the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In the case appellant was residing in Surat with his wife. After a year of marriage, the wife had some serious heart issues and expired. The family of the expired wife alleged that the appellant who was responsible for the death of the wife so they complained against him under sections of Indian penal code. When there was not sufficient evidence to support the claims made by the deceased wife’s family, then the Appellant was released of the charges, but the charge sheet against him was not quashed so the appellant had come to Supreme Court with the appeal that his charge sheet should be quashed
Introduction
According to information available on National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)[1] , there are 59, 87,477 cases pending in high courts across the country as on February 1, 2023. By looking at this data one can easily conclude that judiciary system in India is over burdened at the time, it is also very clear that every minute of judiciary is of great importance and value. To preserve this time and value, Sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is invoked which deals with ‘saving of inherent powers of high court’. If a case is filed against a person and the learned court can satisfy it that there is no substance and evidence in the case and person cannot be convicted even if the trial takes place, can quash the chargesheet suo motto.
To exercise the power of sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the high courts have to satiate it with some guidelines/steps.
- Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, that is, the material is on Sterling and impeccable quality?
- Step two: Whether the material relied upon by the accuse should rule out the assertion contained in the charges levelled against the accused that is the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint that is the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusation as false?
- Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/ complaint and/ or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?
- Step four whether the proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the end of justice
The two bench judge in the case of Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor also observed that the guidelines/steps should be fulfilled by the high court only then it can quash a chargesheet. This is essential so that there is no abuse of the process of the court. It is pertinent to say that there is no statutory limitation of the sec.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as it is established in this case of Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor.
Facts of the case
The appellant was married to the daughter of the respondent on 30/11/1991. The appellant is the member of the Indian Revenue Services at Ahmedabad and the wife of the appellant was a doctor and doing diploma course in gynaecology in Surat. So, the appellant transferred from Ahmedabad to Surat. On 16/09/1992 while both the appellant and the wife were living together, the wife fell ill. She was admitted to the Mahavir Hospital, Surat. She was suffering from Malaria, she was discharged on 20/ 09 /1992, but again after two days, she again fell ill on 22/09/1992 and was diagnosed with a large hole in her heart.
She was shifted to Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat on 24/09/1992, when she was at Urmil Heart and lung Centre Surat; she allegedly suffered a heart attack and died on 26/09/1992. The news was conveyed to the family member to the deceased wife and the body was transported to Delhi in rail. When the family of the deceased received the dead body, the face of the body was blue so the father/respondent suspected that she has been administered with poison show.
So, Madan Lal Kapoor made a complaint against the appellant that he was demanding dowry from the deceased wife and tortured her mentally and physically leading to her illness and also conspired against her with his mother and was given some poisonous substance that is why the face of the dead body was blue. The accused were charged under section 304-B, 120-B, 498-A, 406 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
But according to the medical report, it was clearly stated that the death of the deceased was due to the cardiac decomposition (the heart’s incapability to deliver oxygenated blood to meet the body’s metabolic needs). So appellant appealed to the Supreme Court that the chargesheet should be quashed which was not quashed by the High Court.
Issue raised before the court
- Whether the inherent power of the High Court given under Section.482 in the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked suo motto or not?
Argument from the appellant side
- The counsel from the appellant’s side contends that the diseased wife of the appellant was a doctor and took admission in a diploma course in Surat after their marriage. After a year of their marriage, the deceased wife fell ill and was diagnosed with a large hole in her heart after two-three days from diagnosis she suffered heart attack and died.
- The counsel further contents that on the suspicion of the respondent; the dead body of the deceased was given for post-mortem examination. A medical board was set up which constituted of
- Dr. Bharat Singh Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Delhi.
- Dr. L.T Ramani, Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Delhi
- Dr. Veena Malhotra Professor Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
- Dr. Amit Banerjee, professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
- The counsel further highlighted the point that, the medical board concluded that the deceased has died of cardiac decomposition. With this sample of stomach, intestine, kidney blood etc., was also taken which were also negative.
- The counsel further alleged that the relationship between the deceased family as well as the respondents family were harmonious and cordial as it can be confirmed by the telephone bill, and the letter by the brother of the diseased just before four days from the death of the deceased where he has praised the family of appellant.
- Moreover, the counsel says that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and Sub-divisional Magistrate both was satisfied with the evidence and accordingly discharged the appellant.
- Counsel from the appellant side pointed out that the statement made by the respondent before the Additional Sessions regarding the suspicion of the death of the deceased was different from the allegation that was put forward the first time. Firstly he alleged that poison was administered to the deceased but the statement was changed to the strangulation later. From this, it can be clearly seen that the respondent himself was not known with the facts.
Arguments from the respondent side
- The counsel from the respondent side alleged that when the body of deceased arrived, the face of the deceased was blue. The question here arises that why the colour of the deceased face was blue. Was she was poisoned or was strangled, as the face becomes blue because of these two activities.
- The counsel further alleges that the deceased was not suffering from any disease, but due to the constant harassment which was physical as well as mental, her health became bad and she fell ill. Her death was due to this Continuous harassment for not fulfilling the demand of the dowry from the side of the appellant. Appellant was demanding a Maruti car and cash after one year of marriage.
- The counsel states that the respondent was not informed of the disease the deceased was suffering from or what type of treatment was given to her in hospital. The appellant and his mother both conspired against the respondant’s daughter as she didn’t fulfil the demand of the dowry.
Related Provisions
- Constitution of India,1950
Ar. 226: (Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.) — (1) notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto
And certiorari or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
(a) Furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and (b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
Makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.[2]
- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Sec.482: (Saving of inherent powers of High Court.)— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.[3]
Sec.227 (Discharge)— If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.[4]
Sec. 202: (Postponement of issue of process) — (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section.192, may, if he thinks fit, and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,—
(a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or
(b) Where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section.200.
(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.[5]
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sec. 304-B (Dowry death)- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.[6]
Sec.120-B: (Punishment of criminal conspiracy)- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.[7]
Sec.498-A: (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.[8]
Sec. 306: (Abetment of suicide)- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.[9]
Sec. 109: (Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment) – Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
Explanation- An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the abetment.
Illustrations- (a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161. (b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B. (c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A ‘s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder.[10]
- The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Sec. 45: (Opinions of experts)- When the Court has to form and opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts.
Such persons are called experts.
Illustrations- (a) the question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died, are relevant. (b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the Act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A. The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different persons are relevant.[11]
Sec. 59: (Proof of facts by oral evidence) – All facts, except the contents of documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral evidence.[12]
Sec. 60: (Oral evidence must be direct)- Oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct; that is to say— if it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that manner;
If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds:
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on which such opinions are held, may be proved by the production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable:
Provided also that, if oral evidence refers to the existence to the existence or condition of any material thing other than a document, the Court may, if it thinks fit, require the production of such material thing for its inspection.[13]
Judgement
The Honourable Court held that, “High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under sec.482 must make just and rightful choice. At this stage, neither truthfulness of allegations levelled by complainant can be evaluated, nor can weight of defence evidence be determined, where allegations bring out all ingredients of charge(s) levelled and material placed before court prima facie shows truthfulness of allegations, trial must proceed even when accused is successful in raising some suspicion or doubt in allegations levelled. 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.
Further the court remarked that, “to invoke its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings on basis of defence material High Court has to be fully satisfied that material produced or relied on by accused (a) leads to conclusion that his/her defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; (b) rules out and displaces assertions contained in charges levelled against accused without necessity of recording any evidence; (c) should not have been refuted or alternatively cannot be justifiably refuted, being of sterling and impeccable quality i.e., a reasonable man should be persuaded to dismiss and condemn actual basis of accusations as false; and (d)whether proceedings with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice.”
Highlighting the unlimited powers of High court under sec.482, the case referred is, Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar.[14] In the main order it was observed that the width of the powers of the high court under Sec.482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and also under ar.226 of the constitution is unlimited. The court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent the abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Further in same context stated above another case was referred, State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi.[15] The learned court observed that the court can make orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid in Bhajan Lal case.[16]
Regarding the authentication of evidence the court stated that the statement made in inquest proceedings can only be relied upon if the statement is recorded by the court on oath and the witness has to be cross examined and oral testing formally being proved cannot be relied upon under Evidence act, 1872 Section.59, 60, 45, and 3.
As a consequence, the chargesheet against the accused was quashed and the court again said that the high court when satisfied with the guidelines/steps should quash the chargesheet suo motto to preserve the time of the court.
Conclusion
It was clear from the evidences present in this case that the accused will not be held guilty if the trial was to be proceeded further. The quashing of the charge sheet should take place before the commencement of the actual trial like at the initiation of the prosecution or at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing charges. The matter at hand should have been assessed based on the guideline given in the Bhajan lal case[17] that if he filed the case with malice and ulterior motive for taking revenge from the accused with a view to spite him because of some personal grudge.
As a result the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and quashed the charge sheet and also directed the high court that when the guidelines laid to invoke sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure code are satisfied then the charge sheet should be quashed suo motto.
From my perspective the charge sheet should have been quashed earlier only as the time of the court is precious and should not be wasted. By looking at the evidence it was clear that the accused would not have been found guilty of the act as the evidence clearly pointed towards natural death. This case was active for six-seven years which was a waste of time as there was not enough or reliable evidence from the side of the respondent and the High Court should have quashed the charge sheet of the accused.
[1] National Judicial Data Grid, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/njdgnew/index.php (last visited December 31, 2020).
[2] INDIA CONST. art. 226.
[3] The Criminal Procedure Code, s.482, No.2 Act of Parliament, 1973 (India).
[4] The Criminal Procedure Code, s. 227, No.2 Act of parliament, 1973 (India).
[5] The Criminal Procedure Code, s.202, No. 2 Acts of Parliament, 1973 (India).
[6] The Indian Penal Code, S.304-B, No.45, British Law Commission, 1860 (India).
[7] The Indian Penal Code, S.120-B, No.45, British Law Commission, 1860 (India).
[8] The Indian Penal Code, S.498-A, No.45, British Law Commission, 1860 (India).
[9] The Indian Penal Code, S.306, No.45, British Law Commission, 1860 (India).
[10] The Indian Penal Code, S.109, No.45, British Law Commission, 1860 (India).
[11] The Indian Evidence Act, S.45, No.1, British Parliament, 1872 (India).
[12] The Indian Evidence Act, S.59, No.1, British Parliament, 1872 (India).
[13] The Indian Evidence Act, S.60, No.1, British Parliament, 1872 (India).
[14] Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, AIR 2008 SCC 1.
[15] State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, AIR 2005 SCC 568.
[16] State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
[17] State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SCC (Cri) 426.
Very well done.