High Court dismissed applicant's application under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings for abetment to suicide. Bench relied on precedent that a strong suspicion suffices to frame charges at that stage.
Application under Section 482 CrPC rejected; proceedings directed to continue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8902 of 2022
Applicant :- Yamini Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Chandra Solanki
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard Siddharth Singh, Advocate holding brief of Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Ram Chandra Solanki, Advocate, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and the learned A.G.A.
By means of this application, applicant has payed for quashing the entire proceedings of the court below and impugned order dated 18.2.2022 and 5.3.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Etawah in Case Crime No.127 of 2019, S.T.No.316 of 2021, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Safai, district-Etawah.
The applicant an accused is challenging order dated 18.2.2022, whereby her discharge application was rejected.
Learned counsel for applicant submits that during investigation, material for purpose of framing of charge was not available, therefore, discharge application was wrongly rejected. He further submits that alleged suicide note referred in impugned order was not conclusively proved that it was written by deceased in absence of any expert report.
The above submissions are opposed by learned A.G.A. that according to impugned order there are more than prima facie case against the applicant. So far as other contentions are concerned that can be considered during trial.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh Vs. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey and Others, 2022 SCC Online 913 has reiterated the law with regard to framing of charge. Relevant paragraphs 29 and 30, whereof are mentioned hereinafter:
"29. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons
in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The shifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (See: Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217).
(Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, learned trial court has passed a detailed order wherein not only evidence on record was considered, but position of law as well as suicide note was also considered and thereafter it came to conclusion that there are more than primafacie evidence and strong suspicion exist that accused has committed an offence of abetment of suicide.
As held in Ghulam Hassan Beigh (supra) that at the stage of framing of charges, court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the
accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice.
During investigation, suicide note was recovered and contents thereof were referred in the impugned order itself suggest that applicant has committed an offence for abetment of suicide. At this stage, Court cannot conduct a mini trial to the extent that on the basis of evidence, accused can be convicted or not. The other argument that hand written suicide note was written by deceased or not will be a subject matter of trial.
In view of the above discussion on facts as well as on law, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, therefore, application is rejected.
Trial Court is directed to proceed further in Case Crime No.127 of 2019, S.T.No.316 of 2021, under Section 306 I.P.C., Police Station-Safai, district-Etawah, pending in the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Etawah.
Order Date :- 11.11.2022 SB
(Serial No.390 out of 694 fresh cases)
Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.12.05 16:48:36 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the discharge application is illegal and require quashing.
Whether the trial court erred in framing charges for abetment to suicide without conducting a mini trial.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Yamini
State of U.P.
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
