It Is Not The Business Of Any Of The Courts To Ascertain What Would Be The Outcome Of The Trial: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while hearing a Special Leave Petition, dismissed the appeal stating that the charges, unless outrightly defective or erroneous, should not warrant quashing and that the Trial Court should ascertain the outcome with due process.
A Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta held that “the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused.”
Further, the Court stated that “Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it.”
AOR Kunal Verma appeared for the Petitioner while AAG Anil Kaushik represented the Respondents.
In this case, a complaint was filed by Respondent No.2 against the 7 accused including the Petitioner under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 120B, Indian Penal Code. The Police Report dated February 14, 2022 invoked the charges of Sections 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B and 180 of the IPC against the petitioner.
The principal accused is the sister of the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 in her statement stated that she paid a sum of Rs. 45 lakhs to the principal accused for the purpose of establishing a pharma company that would be engaged in the manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines.
It was also alleged that all the accused including the Petitioner had assured the second Respondent, with the objective of carrying out the criminal conspiracy.
Upon the charge sheet being received, the criminal court took cognizance of the offence and thereafter charges were framed against the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kurukshetra on July 18, 2022. Such order was challenged by the petitioner under Section 397, Cr. PC. The Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Kurukshetra dismissed the revision due to lack of merit on September 27, 2022.
The Petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC challenging the orders passed by the CJM and ASJ. The High Court in its order dated November 11, 2022, spurned the challenge and declined interference resulting in dismissal of the proceedings initiated by the petitioner.
Thereby the Petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
The Bench looked into the evidence and the contents of the Charge Sheet and found that sufficient evidence is made out against the Petitioner. Further, the Court looked into the powers under Section 482, CrPC and placed reliance in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra ((2012) 9 SCC 460).
The Court held that “the principal accused, to cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuade us to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial. For the reasons aforesaid, we uphold the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482, Cr. PC. The trial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment and order which is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal.”
The case involved another aspect stemming from a reply affidavit submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) wherein it was stated that “petitioner refused to sign her statement for which she was also charge sheeted for commission of an offence under section 180 IPC”.
The Court, while not taking any action held that “Section 180 of the IPC gets attracted only if a statement is refused to be signed which a public servant is legally competent to require the person making the statement to sign”.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed without cost.
Cause Title: Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana and Anr., Special Leave Petition (CRL) No. 3662 of 2023
