- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant lodged FIR No. 285/2014 at Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur on 8-5-2014 alleging that Respondents 1-3 harassed his wife, Nilu, which led her to commit suicide along with their twin children by jumping in front of a train. Respondent 1 is the appellant’s sister-in-law, while Respondents 2 and 3 are her brothers. The harassment allegedly stemmed from Respondent 1’s dissatisfaction with agricultural land allotted to her husband. A final report (charge-sheet) was filed on 19-7-2014 alleging offences under Sections 306/34 IPC.
Respondents 1-3 moved the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the FIR and charge-sheet did not disclose the ingredients of abetment of suicide. The High Court examined statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, held that the allegations at best attracted Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), and quashed the proceedings. The appellant challenged that order before the Supreme Court, resulting in the present appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that the FIR and charge-sheet did not prima facie disclose offences under Sections 306/34 IPC.
- Whether statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC can be relied upon at the quashing stage to assess the sufficiency of evidence against the accused.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents 1-3
- Allegations in the FIR and charge-sheet show only general harassment; they do not satisfy the ingredients of Sections 306 or 107 IPC because no specific act of instigation or abetment is alleged.
- If the essential ingredients of the offence are absent, compelling the respondents to face trial would amount to abuse of process.
- Relied on several Supreme Court judgments (titles not specified in the opinion) to support the proposition that mere harassment, without proximate instigation, cannot constitute abetment of suicide.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| (2007) 7 SCC 378 | Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC are inadmissible in evidence at the quashing stage. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in relying on Section 161 statements to assess the merits and quash the proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and only when the allegations, taken at face value, fail to make out any offence. It emphasised that:
- Courts cannot embark upon an appreciation of evidence or weigh its probative value while considering a quashing petition.
- Section 161 CrPC statements are wholly inadmissible at this stage; the High Court’s assessment of those statements was therefore impermissible.
- One witness’s Section 161 statement indicated that the deceased had expressed an intention to commit suicide because she could no longer bear the harassment by the respondents. This, if proved, could satisfy the ingredients of Section 306 IPC.
Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that a prima facie case was disclosed and that the High Court had prematurely terminated the prosecution, thereby “scuttling a full-fledged trial” where the respondents could defend themselves.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal is allowed; the judgment of the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings is set aside.
Implications: The criminal case against Respondents 1-3 will proceed to trial, where evidence will be assessed on merits. The decision reinforces existing jurisprudence that Section 161 CrPC statements cannot be weighed at the quashing stage and sets no new substantive precedent beyond applying that settled principle to the facts.
L. Nageswara Rao, J.— 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 Respondents 1 and 3 was quashed in exercise of its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “CrPC”).
2. The appellant filed a complaint before Police Station Kareli, District Narsinghpur on which FIR No. 285 of 2014 was registered on 8-5-2014. According to the complaint, it was urged that Respondents 1 to 3 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 1 were living separately.
3. Respondent 1 was not satisfied with the land which was given by the appellant's father to her husband. Respondent 1 along with her brothers, Respondents 2 and 3, started harassing the family of the appellant especially Nilu. According to the FIR, Respondents 1 to 3 used to quarrel with the deceased Nilu. On 5-5-2014, Respondent 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.
4. Mahendra Singh Kourav made a complaint about the said incident of intimidation to the police station on 7-5-2014. The appellant, his family members and Respondents 1 to 3 were called to the police station and the matter was settled for the time being. Thereafter, Respondents 1 to 3 went to 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.
5. A final report was filed on 19-7-2014 on completion of investigation. A petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was contended on behalf of Respondents 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 Respondents 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.
6. The High Court summoned the record of investigation and perused the statements recorded by the appellant and his family members under Section 161 CrPC. The High Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC would show that Respondent 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 Respondents 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 Respondents 1 to 3 and was thinking of putting an end to her life.
7. The High Court observed that the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 at the most constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. Read as a whole, the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 did not make out an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC. The High Court further held that ingredients of Section 107 IPC are also not satisfied. In that view, the petition filed by Respondents 1 to 3 for quashing the criminal proceeding was allowed.
8. 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.
9. Mr Shoeb Alam, learned counsel appearing for Respondents 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 Sections 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 Respondents 1 to 3 are not prima facie made out, there is no reason why they should face a criminal trial.
10. We do not agree with the submissions made on behalf of Respondents 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, while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC (2007) 7 SCC 378.
11. Moreover, the High Court was aware that one of the witnesses mentioned that the deceased informed him about the harassment meted out by Respondents 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 CrPC.
12. 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 Respondents 1 to 3 would have a fair opportunity to prove their innocence.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Alert