caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Rajeev Kourav vs Baisahab on 11 February, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Deepak Gupta
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.232 of 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1174 of 2017)
RAJEEV KOURAV
…. Appellants
Versus
BAISAHAB AND ORS.
…. Respondent (s)
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The above Appeal is filed against the judgment of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at
Jabalpur by which a criminal proceeding against
Respondent Nos.1 and 3 was quashed in exercise of its
power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short “the CrPC”).
2. The Appellant filed a complaint before the Police
Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur on which FIR No.285 of
2014 was registered on 08.05.2014. According to the
complaint, it was urged that Respondent Nos.1 to 3
1
subjected Nilu, the wife of the Appellant to harassment
due to which she committed suicide along with her two
children. The first Respondent is the wife of elder brother
of the Appellant. The second and third Respondents are
the brothers of the first Respondent. The brother of the
Appellant and Respondent No.1 were living separately.
Respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the land which
was given by the Appellant’s father to her husband.
Respondent No.1 along with her brothers, Respondent
Nos.2 and 3, started harassing the family of the Appellant
especially Nilu. According to the FIR, Respondent Nos.1 to
3 used to quarrel with the deceased Nilu. On 05.05.2014,
Respondent No.1 filed a false complaint against the
Appellant and his parents. She also intimidated
Mahendra Singh Kourav, maternal uncle of the Appellant
by threatening him that she would pour kerosene oil and
set herself on fire along with her children and implicate
the entire family of the Appellant in a criminal case.
Mahendra Singh Kourav made a complaint about the said
incident of intimidation to the Police Station on
07.05.2014. The Appellant, his family members and
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were called to the Police Station
2 | Page
and the matter was settled for the time being.
Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 to 3 went to the village
Jhumri and assaulted the deceased Nilu. Unable to bear
the torture, Nilu along with her children Harisharan aged
1½ years and Ramsharan aged 1½ years committed
suicide by jumping in front of a moving train.
3. A final report was filed on 19.07.2014 on completion
of investigation. A petition under Section 482 of the CrPC
was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was
contended on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the
High Court that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have
not been made out and the proceedings are liable to be
quashed. According to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, the FIR
and the charge sheet would only disclose that the entire
family of the Appellant was being harassed. The
Respondents cannot be held guilty of offence under
Section 306 as there is nothing on record to show that
they have incited the deceased to take the extreme step
of committing suicide.
4. The High Court summoned the record of
investigation and perused the statements recorded by the
3 | Page
Appellant and his family members under Section 161
CrPC. The High Court held that statements recorded
under Section 161 CrPC. would show that Respondent
No.1 is a quarrelsome lady who has threatened the
Appellant’s family of false implication in a criminal case.
The High Court observed that none of the persons whose
statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded have
mentioned about the complaint of the deceased and that
she was thinking of committing suicide due to the
harassment of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The High Court
recorded a finding that Ramsharan Kourav, the uncle of
the deceased, has stated in his statement under Section
161 that the deceased informed him that she is unable to
bear the torture of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and was
thinking of putting an end to her life.
5. The High Court observed that the allegations made
against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 at the most constitute an
offence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation.
Read as a whole, the allegations made against
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not make out an offence under
Section 306/34 IPC. The High Court further held that
ingredients of Section 107 IPC are also not satisfied. In
4 | Page
that view, the petition filed by Respondent Nos.1-3 for
quashing the criminal proceeding was allowed.
6. It is no more res integra that exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is
only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge
sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences
alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section
482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law
that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence
cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very
exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the
criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court
cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while
considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for
quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law
laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made
out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged
against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding.
5 | Page
7. Mr.Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 relied upon several judgments of
this Court to submit that allegations only disclose a case
of harassment meted out to the deceased. The
ingredients of Section 306 and 107 IPC have not been
made out. It is submitted that there is nothing on record
to show that the Respondents have abetted the
commission of suicide by the deceased. He further
argued that abetment as defined under Section 107 IPC is
instigation which is missing in the complaint made by the
Appellant. He further argued that if the allegations
against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are not prima facie made
out, there is no reason why they should face a criminal
trial.
8. We do not agree with the submissions made on
behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. The conclusion of the
High Court to quash the criminal proceedings is on the
basis of its assessment of the statements recorded under
Section 161 CrPC. Statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 CrPC being wholly inadmissible in
evidence cannot be taken into consideration by the Court,
6 | Page
while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482
CrPC1.
9. Moreover, the High Court was aware that one of the
witnesses mentioned that the deceased informed him
about the harassment meted out by Respondent Nos.1 to
3 which she was not able to bear and hence wanted to
commit suicide. The High Court committed an error in
quashing criminal proceedings by assessing the
statements under Section 161 Cr. P.C.
10. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of
the matter. The High Court ought not to have quashed
the proceedings at this stage, scuttling a full-fledged trial
in which Respondent Nos.1 to 3 would have a fair
opportunity to prove their innocence.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of
the High Court is set aside and the Appeal is allowed.
……………………………J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
……………………….J.
[DEEPAK GUPTA]
New Delhi,
February 11, 2020.
1 Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr. (2007) 7 SCC 378
7 | Page
Comments