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)

J U D G M E N T

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e

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 | P a g e