Supreme Court clarifies the admissibility of defence material during charge framing: Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar (2008)

Date of the Judgment: October 3, 2008

Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1576-1577 OF 2008

Judges: Markandey Katju, J. and Altamas Kabir, J.

Can a court consider defence materials while framing charges in a criminal case? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question in Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar, a case involving allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against an advocate. The court clarified the circumstances under which defence materials can be considered at the charge framing stage, balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial. This judgment provides significant guidance on the scope of judicial review during the initial stages of a criminal trial.

Case Background

The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by Rukmini Narvekar against Ranjit Satardekar and his wife, Vijaya Satardekar. The FIR, dated February 25, 2002, alleged that Ranjit Satardekar, an advocate, had fraudulently induced Rukmini Narvekar and her deceased husband, Raghunath Narvekar, to sign certain papers under the false pretense of authorizing him to represent them in inventory proceedings related to the estate of Andre Andrade.

Andre Andrade had several children, including a daughter married to Raghunath Narvekar. After their divorce on February 16, 1973, Raghunath Narvekar married Rukmini Narvekar. Under Goa law, Raghunath Narvekar and Rukmini Narvekar inherited a 10% share in Andre Andrade’s estate. The remaining 10% went to Vijaya Andrade, who was also represented by Ranjit Satardekar in the inventory proceedings.

The FIR alleged that Ranjit Satardekar misrepresented the documents as necessary for representation in the inventory proceedings, while they were actually a Power of Attorney. This Power of Attorney was allegedly used to execute a sale deed in favor of Vijaya Satardekar and Sadiq Sheikh in 1991, which was presented for registration only in 2001. Rukmini Narvekar claimed she only discovered the sale deed in August 2001. She alleged that Ranjit Satardekar had deceitfully sold her property, warranting punishment under Sections 409, 420, and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the FIR, the police filed a chargesheet against Ranjit Satardekar, Vijaya Satardekar, and two others. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Panaji, took cognizance of the alleged offenses and issued process under Sections 468, 471, 420, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The accused filed a Criminal Revision before the Sessions Judge, Panaji, challenging the order taking cognizance and issuing process. The Sessions Judge dismissed the revision on June 19, 2007. Subsequently, the accused filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated August 3, 2007, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Sections 409, 420, 423 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with criminal breach of trust, cheating, and fraudulent execution of deeds, respectively.
• Sections 468, 471, 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC: These sections pertain to forgery, using forged documents as genuine, criminal conspiracy, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.
• Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section grants the High Court inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
• Article 226 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
• Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with discharge of the accused. It states:
  
  “227. Discharge- If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Rukmini Narvekar):

• Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued that the High Court erred in relying on evidence from a Civil Suit (No. 97 of 2004, New No. 101 of 2004) to quash the criminal case. The Civil Suit had been decreed on December 30, 2006, in favor of the complainant.
• He submitted that a perusal of the FIR clearly indicates that a prima facie offence is made out against Ranjit Satardekar. The allegations in the FIR, if considered correct, establish an offense against the respondent.
• Shri Rohatgi contended that at the stage of framing charges, the court can only consider the material produced by the prosecution and not the material produced by the defense, relying on the decision in State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005(1) SCC 568.

Respondent’s Arguments (Vijaya Satardekar & Ors.):

• Shri U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel for the respondent, argued that the evidence from the Civil Suit could be relied upon to quash the criminal proceedings, given the facts of the case.
• Shri Lalit submitted that the proceedings against Ranjit Satardekar were mala fide, as evidenced by the testimony of Dhananjay Narvekar in the Civil Suit, who stated that he had received money from Ranjit Satardekar. This, according to Shri Lalit, proves that the complainant was aware of the sale deed of 1991.
• He argued that the seventh ground mentioned in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which allows the High Court to quash criminal proceedings, applies to this case. The seventh ground states:
  
  “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
• Shri Lalit contended that in some rare cases, the Court is justified in looking into the material produced by the defense at the time of framing charges, if such material convincingly establishes that the whole prosecution version is totally absurd, preposterous, or concocted.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was right in relying on the evidence proceedings in Civil Suit (No.97 of 2004, New No.101 of 2004) for the purpose of quashing the criminal case against Ranjit Satardekar.
• Whether the allegations in the FIR, if treated to be correct, prima facie make out an offence against the respondent, Ranjit Satardekar.
• Whether the proceedings against Ranjit Satardekar were mala fide and with ulterior motive.
• Whether the material produced by the defence can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005(4) SCC 370 (Constitution Bench, Supreme Court): This case was cited to address the issue of whether findings in a civil suit are binding in a criminal case. The court noted that the view that civil suit findings are binding has been somewhat watered down in subsequent decisions of larger benches.
• K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and Anr. 2002(8) SCC 87 (Three-Judge Bench, Supreme Court): This case further elaborated on the issue of the impact of civil suit findings on criminal cases.
• State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 (Supreme Court): This case laid down the law regarding when criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution.
• Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. 1998(5) SCC 749 (Supreme Court): This case followed the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings.
• Minu Kumari and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. 2006(4) SCC 359 (Supreme Court): This case also followed the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal.
• State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005(1) SCC 568 (Supreme Court): This case addressed whether the court can consider defence material at the time of framing charges.
• Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration [(1996) 9 SCC 766 (Supreme Court): This case held that if the accused were able to produce any reliable material at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge which might fatally affect the very sustainability of the case, it is unjust to suggest that no such material should be looked into by the Court at that stage.
• Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. JT 2008(8) SC 621 (Supreme Court): This case reiterated that a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as a Euclid formula.
• Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. N.R. Vairamani & Anr AIR 2004 SC 4778 (Supreme Court): This case observed that observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s formula nor as provisions of the statute.
• Dr. Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2008(9) Scale 166 (Supreme Court): This case referred to various decisions on the point of quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused and quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused, though on the allegations in the F.I.R. prima facie an offence was made out.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. 2005(4) SCC 370: The Supreme Court considered this authority to state that the view that civil suit findings are binding has been somewhat watered down in subsequent decisions of larger benches.
• State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335: The Supreme Court considered this authority to state the law regarding when criminal proceedings can be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution.
• State of Orissa vs. Debendra Nath Padhi 2005(1) SCC 568: The Supreme Court considered this authority to address whether the court can consider defence material at the time of framing charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar was influenced by a combination of factors, with particular emphasis on the allegations in the FIR, the admissibility of defence material, and the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court carefully balanced the need to ensure a fair trial with the rights of the accused.

The Court emphasized the following points:

• The allegations in the FIR, if treated as correct, prima facie make out an offence against Ranjit Satardekar.
• While ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into at the stage of framing charges, there may be very rare and exceptional cases where it can be considered.
• The principles laid down in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which govern the quashing of criminal proceedings, must be carefully applied.

Sentiment Analysis Ranking of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court was right in relying on the evidence proceedings in Civil Suit for the purpose of quashing the criminal case against Ranjit Satardekar.

Issue: Whether the allegations in the FIR, if treated to be correct, prima facie make out an offence against the respondent, Ranjit Satardekar.

Issue: Whether the proceedings against Ranjit Satardekar were mala fide and with ulterior motive.

Issue: Whether the material produced by the defence can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance.

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal against Ranjit Satardekar, setting aside the High Court’s judgment and directing that the criminal proceedings against him should continue in the trial Court. However, the Court clarified that the trial Court would not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment.

In contrast, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal against Smt. Vijaya Satardekar, affirming the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings against her. The Court found no material in the FIR or produced by the prosecution to show that Vijaya Satardekar was involved in the alleged criminal offence committed by her husband, Ranjit Satardekar.

The Court emphasized that:

“…ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge in view of D.N. Padhi’s case (supra), there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or taking cognizance.”

Key Takeaways

• Admissibility of Defence Material: The Supreme Court clarified that defence material can be considered at the stage of framing charges only in very rare and exceptional cases where it convincingly demonstrates that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous.
• Mala Fide Intent: The Court emphasized that the High Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings only in exceptional cases, such as when the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent or are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
• Civil Suit Findings: The Court reiterated that while findings in a civil suit may have some relevance in criminal proceedings, they are not binding, and the criminal court must independently assess the evidence before it.
• Prima Facie Offence: The Court emphasized the importance of determining whether the allegations in the FIR, if treated as correct, prima facie make out an offence against the accused.

Impact

The Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar judgment has had a significant impact on the legal landscape, particularly concerning the admissibility of defence material during charge framing. The judgment provides clear guidelines for lower courts to follow, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected while also maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The judgment has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it continues to be a relevant authority on the issue of admissibility of defence material during charge framing. It serves as a reminder that while the general rule is that defence material should not be considered at this stage, there are exceptional circumstances where it may be necessary to do so in order to prevent injustice.

Conclusion

The Rukmini Narvekar vs. Vijaya Satardekar case is a landmark judgment that clarifies the circumstances under which defence material can be considered at the charge framing stage. The Supreme Court’s decision strikes a balance between the rights of the accused and the need for a fair trial, providing valuable guidance to lower courts.

The judgment emphasizes that while ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into at the stage of framing charges, there may be very rare and exceptional cases where it can be considered if it convincingly demonstrates that the prosecution version is totally absurd or preposterous. This principle ensures that the criminal justice system operates fairly and effectively, protecting the rights of all parties involved.