2014 (1) TMI 1042 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of High Court - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - Abatement to suicide - High Court quashed charges against Section 306 IPC and 448 IPC - Held that - revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court is dealing with the question as to whether the charge has been framed properly and in accordance with law in a given case, it may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the case substantially falls within the categories. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the expression prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice , the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done. The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily. What weighed with the High Court was that firstly it was an abuse of the process of court and, secondly, it was a case of civil nature and that the facts, as stated, would not constitute an offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. Interestingly and as is evident from the findings recorded by the High Court reproduced supra that this aspect of the matter will get unravelled only after a full-fledged trial , once the High Court itself was of the opinion that clear facts and correctness of the allegations made can be examined only upon full trial, where was the need for the Court to quash the charge under Section 306 at that stage. Framing of charge is a kind of tentative view that the trial court forms in terms of Section 228 which is subject to final culmination of the proceedings. High Court has also noticed that perusal of the suicide note brings to fore the fact that the petitioner-accused is not only named but his illegal occupation of the house of the deceased is stated to be one of the primary reasons for Komal Kapoor in committing the suicide. The statement of the son of the deceased is also on the same line. Then the High Court proceeds further to notice that even if it is assumed at this stage that the suicide note and statement were correct, the action of the petitioner-accused in forcibly occupying the portion of the house of the deceased and the deceased taking the extreme step would not bring his act within the definition of abetment, as there is no material or evidence placed by the prosecution on record. This finding could hardly be recorded without travelling into the merits of the case and appreciating the evidence. The Court could pronounce whether the offence falls within the ambit and scope of Section 306 IPC or not. These documents clearly show that the accused persons had brought in existence the circumstances which, as claimed by the prosecution, led to the extreme step of suicide being taken by the deceased. It cannot be equated to inflictment of cruelty as discussed by the High Court in its judgment. A wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact and such person voluntarily causing or procuring or attempting to cause or procure a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of that thing. According to the record, the accused had made a wrong statement that he had paid a sum of ₹ 24,00,000/- for purchase of the property C-224, Tagore Garden, Delhi and the property belonged to him. Whether it was a misrepresentation of the accused and was an attempt to harass the deceased and her family which ultimately led to her suicide is a question to be examined by the Court. The allegations as made in the afore-stated documents clearly reflects that blank documents were got signed, but the purpose, the consideration and complete facts relating to the transaction were not disclosed to the deceased or the family. Instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case. All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence. Husband of the deceased was a paralysed person. They were in financial crises. They had sold their property. They had great faith in the accused and were heavily relying on him as their property transactions were transacted through the accused itself. Grabbing of the property, as alleged in the suicide note and the statement made by the son of the deceased as well as getting blank papers signed and not giving monies due to them are the circumstances stated to have led to the suicide of the deceased. The Court is not expected to form even a firm opinion at this stage but a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 of the Code. Finding returned by the High Court suffers from an error of law. It has delved into the field of appreciation and evaluation of the evidence which is beyond the jurisdiction, either revisional or inherent, of the High Court under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code - Charge against the accused under Section 306 read with Section 107 and Section 448 IPC are found to be in order - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Extent and scope of powers exercisable by the High Court under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Framing of charges under Section 306 IPC (Abetment of Suicide) and Section 448 IPC (House-trespass).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent and Scope of Powers under Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Scope and Ambit of Section 397:
Section 397 of the Code allows the court to call for and examine the records of an inferior court to ensure the legality and regularity of any proceedings or order. The object is to correct a patent defect or error of jurisdiction or law. The revisional jurisdiction is invoked for grossly erroneous decisions, non-compliance with provisions of law, findings based on no evidence, ignoring material evidence, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. This jurisdiction is limited and should not be exercised routinely, especially against interim or interlocutory orders. The court should not interfere unless the case substantially falls within these categories.

Scope and Ambit of Section 482:
Section 482 of the Code confers wide powers on the High Court to do justice and prevent abuse of the court process. It is an extraordinary and residuary power, inapplicable where specific provisions of the Code provide a remedy. It can be invoked where the order in question is neither interlocutory nor final. The inherent powers under Section 482 are broader than those under Section 397, which is limited to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of orders. Section 482 aims to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court process, to be exercised with caution and in rarest of rare cases.

Comparative Examination:
The powers under Sections 397 and 482 overlap but differ in scope. Section 482's inherent powers are broader and not restricted by Section 397's limitations. Section 482 can be invoked in extraordinary situations to prevent abuse of the court process. The High Court should exercise these powers sparingly, ensuring justice and preventing misuse of the court's process.

2. Framing of Charges under Section 306 IPC and Section 448 IPC:

Framing of Charges:
Framing of charges is a significant step in a criminal trial, requiring the court to apply its mind to the entire record and documents. The court must consider whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. This presumption is not of law but a tentative view based on the record. The court should not meticulously judge the evidence's truth, veracity, or effect at this stage. The standard of judgment applied at the trial's conclusion is not applicable at the stage of framing charges. The court should not quash charges unless the case falls within specific categories, such as absence of material evidence, lack of ingredients of the offence, or the case being predominantly civil with no criminal element.

High Court's Findings and Supreme Court's Analysis:
The High Court quashed the charge under Section 306 IPC, stating that the accused's actions did not constitute abetment of suicide. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the High Court delved into the merits and evidence, which was premature. The Supreme Court emphasized that framing of charges is a tentative view, and the trial should proceed to examine the allegations and evidence. The Supreme Court held that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC (abetment of suicide) were prima facie satisfied, and the trial should continue. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial under Sections 306 and 448 IPC.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of revisional and inherent jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 482 of the Code. It emphasized that framing of charges is a preliminary step, and the court should not quash charges unless the case falls within specific categories. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial under Sections 306 and 448 IPC.