Amit Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander & Anr

3. The facts as they emerge from the record fall within a very narrow compass. On 4th December, 2007, the Rajouri Garden Police Station received information that a woman had committed suicide at C-224, Tagore Garden Extension, Delhi. Upon making entry under DD No.16A of that date, Sub Inspector O.P. Mandal commenced investigation and reached the place of occurrence. The deceased was identified as Komal Kapoor. Her body was sent for post mortem. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of her son Amit Kapoor and on 5.12.2007 at about 12.15 p.m. an FIR was registered on the complaint filed by him. This FIR was registered against Ramesh Chander Sibbal (the accused) and another, on the basis of the statement of Amit Kapoor and the suicide note. According to Amit Kapoor, he knew Ramesh Chander Sibbal for the last 10 years. Father of Amit Kapoor was running a paint brush business and had purchased property No.C-225, Tagore Garden, Delhi through the said Ramesh Chander Sibbal. Since the father of Amit Kapoor had fallen ill, his mother was also looking after the business. However, the family business suffered acute losses. The family discussed the possibility of selling their moveable and immoveable property situated at Rohini. The accused persons are stated to have fraudulently obtained signatures of the deceased in this connection. In order to get over the financial crises and to meet their liabilities, the deceased had also discussed the possibility of selling another plot owned by the family situated in Bawana Industrial Area. At that time also, the accused told the deceased that certain documents have to be executed before the plot is sold. On this pretext, he again got some papers signed by them. The accused paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the deceased at the first instance and thereafter a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the plot situated in Bawana as against the market value of Rs.28,00,000/-, with an assurance that the rest of the amount will be paid after execution of the sale deed.

4. Around the time of Dussehra in 2007, the accused approached the deceased claiming that he be given accommodation on a temporary basis for a period of ten to twelve days on the ground floor of her house situated at C- 224, Tagore Garden, Delhi on the pretext that his own house was under

5. The Investigating Officer prepared the site plan, effected recoveries of the articles from the place of occurrence and thereafter recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code wherein Ramesh Chander Sibbal was stated as the accused and names of his wife, Suman Sibbal and son Gaurav Sibbal were shown in Column No.2. Upon committal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Sections 306 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

12. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its revisional and inherent powers to quash the charge framed against the petitioner accused under Section 306 of the IPC. The revision petition is thus partially allowed. The charge framed against the petitioner-accused under Section 306 of the IPC shall be dropped. The trial court will continue with the trial of the petitioner-accused in respect of the remaining charge framed against him.”

3) The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.

9) Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.

15) Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae, i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.

Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence. In the instant case, the abetted persons have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section

27. Thus, we are of the considered view that the 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.

28. For the reasons afore-recorded, this appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law, uninfluenced in any way whatsoever from what has been recorded in this judgment. Charge against the accused under Section 306 read with Section 107 and Section 448 IPC are found to be in order.

September 13, 2012.