2008 (10) TMI 668 - SC - Indian Laws

False misrepresentation - fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant and her deceased husband to place their signatures and thumb impression on some papers - Power of Attorney was used by the accused for executing a sale deed in favour of his wife Vijaya Satardekar (Respondent Nos. 2) - it was contended that High Court should not have relied on the evidence in the Civil Suit for the purpose of quashing the criminal case - HELD THAT - It cannot be said as an absolute proposition that under no circumstances can the Court look into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges though this should be done in very rare cases i.e. where the defence produces some material which convincingly demonstrates that the whole prosecution case is totally absurd or totally concocted. We agree with Shri Lalit that in some very rare cases the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defence at the time of framing of the charges if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd preposterous or concocted. However in this case it cannot be said that the evidence in the Civil Suit which was produced by the defence before the trial court established convincingly that the prosecution case is totally absurd or preposterous. In our opinion this is a matter which has to be looked into by the trial Court. In DR. MONICA KUMAR ANR VERSUS STATE OF U.P. ORS 2008 (5) TMI 687 - SUPREME COURT this Court referred to various decisions on the point of quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. In this decision this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused though on the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie an offence was made out. Thus quashing of the criminal case was done considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. No doubt in this decision the Court has relied on Article 142 of the Constitution but in our opinion the result would have been the same irrespective of Article 142. The judgment of the High Court in respect of Ranjit Sataredkar set aside - it is directed that the criminal proceedings against him will go on in the trial Court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against judgment of Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition, Quashing of criminal proceedings against the accused, Reliability of evidence from a Civil Suit in criminal case, Powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C, Allegations of mala fide intentions in initiating criminal proceedings, Consideration of defence material at the time of framing charges.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals against the Bombay High Court's judgment in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 7/2007 and 8/2007. The appeals involved allegations against a husband and wife, Ranjit and Vijaya Satardekar, stemming from an FIR filed by Rukmini Narvekar. The FIR accused Ranjit Satardekar, an advocate, of fraudulently inducing the complainant and her deceased husband to sign a Power of Attorney under false pretenses, leading to the alleged sale of their property. The police filed a chargesheet, and the accused sought to quash the proceedings, leading to the current appeals.

The High Court's judgment was challenged on the grounds that it quashed the complaint against Ranjit Satardekar but upheld it against Vijaya Satardekar. The arguments revolved around the reliance on evidence from a Civil Suit in quashing the criminal case, with the defense arguing against such reliance. The Court discussed the powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the principles laid down in previous cases like State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court examined the allegations of mala fide intentions in initiating the criminal proceedings, considering the evidence presented and the possibility of defense material influencing the framing of charges. It was emphasized that defense material could be considered in rare cases where it convincingly demonstrates the prosecution's case is absurd. The Court clarified that the trial court should assess such matters during the trial rather than preemptively quashing proceedings.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the criminal proceedings against Ranjit Satardekar, noting that the allegations in the FIR prima facie established an offense. However, the Court dismissed the appeal concerning Vijaya Satardekar, as there was no evidence implicating her in the alleged criminal activity. The judgment highlighted the need for thorough examination during trial proceedings and refrained from influencing the trial court's decisions.