SC said although the involvement of the petitioner is limited, it should not interfere with the proceedings unless the allegations were patently absurd or inherently improbable.

 

SUPRIYA JAIN … APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. … RESPONDENTS

 

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1780 OF 2023

 

In this judgment, the court addresses a case where the petitioner is one of the accused in a criminal complaint. The complaint was lodged by the second respondent, and it alleged offenses under sections 406, 420, 506, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges were related to cheating, fraud, and criminal conspiracy. The petitioner challenged the charges against her, seeking to quash the proceedings.

The investigation of the complaint resulted in the submission of a charge sheet by the police. However, upon perusal of the charge sheet, the court noted that it did not clearly establish the role of the petitioner in one of the alleged offenses under section 379 of the IPC, which was added to the FIR at a later stage. The main allegations in the complaint were leveled against the principal accused (who happened to be the petitioner's sister), her husband, and other co-accused.

The complaint alleged that the principal accused allured the second respondent into parting with a sum of Rs. 45 lakh for the establishment of a pharmaceutical company that would manufacture Ayurvedic medicines. The second respondent accused the petitioner of being a member of the gang that cheated and defrauded her. However, apart from the conspiracy allegation, no other specific allegations were made against the petitioner in the complaint.

The court examined the charge sheet, which included the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected during the investigation. It also considered the principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by high courts in quashing criminal proceedings. The court noted that it should not interfere with the proceedings unless the allegations were patently absurd or inherently improbable.

After reviewing the materials, the court concluded that the involvement of the petitioner, although limited, could not be ruled out at that stage. The court held that there was sufficient material against the petitioner to proceed with the trial. It emphasized that the focus at this stage was not to determine guilt or innocence but to decide whether a prima facie opinion could be formed regarding the commission of an offense.

The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the charges and upheld the judgment of the High Court, which had declined to quash the proceedings. It directed the trial court to proceed with the trial uninfluenced by its observations.

In addition, the court noted an issue in the reply affidavit filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who made incorrect statements regarding the petitioner's confession statement and the charge under section 180 of the IPC. The court expressed its dismay at the officer's irresponsible behavior and warned him to be cautious in the future.

Overall, the court upheld the continuation of the trial against the petitioner, emphasizing that the allegations warranted further examination in a court of law.

 

 4 July 2023

v  Here are the instances in the judgment where specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC) are mentioned:

 

1.    Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 406: The FIR (First Information Report) was registered under this section along with other sections, alleging criminal breach of trust.
• Section 420: The FIR accused the petitioner and others of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 506: The FIR charged the accused, including the petitioner, with criminal intimidation.
• Section 120B: The FIR alleged the involvement of the accused, including the petitioner, in a criminal conspiracy.
• Section 379: The charge-sheet filed under section 173(2) of the Cr. PC mentioned sections 379, along with other sections, against the accused, excluding the petitioner.
• Section 180: The petitioner was also charged under section 180 of the IPC for refusing to sign her confessional statement.

2.    Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC):

• Section 173(2): The investigation of the FIR culminated in the submission of a charge-sheet under section 173(2) of the Cr. PC, which included various sections of the IPC against the accused, excluding the petitioner.
• Section 397: The petitioner challenged the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) framing charges by filing a revision petition under section 397 of the Cr. PC.