Supreme Court Upholds Charges in Cheating Case: Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana (2023)

Date of the Judgment: July 4, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 618

Judges: S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Dipankar Datta, J.

Can a court dismiss criminal proceedings at the initial stage if there is some evidence of involvement, even if limited? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The Court examined whether the High Court was correct in refusing to quash charges against the petitioner, who was accused of conspiring to cheat a complainant out of a substantial sum of money. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Datta, with the opinion authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case began with a complaint filed by the second respondent, alleging that she was cheated of ₹45 lakh. The principal accused, the petitioner’s sister, allegedly lured the second respondent to invest in a pharma company manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. The second respondent claimed that the principal accused, along with her husband and other co-accused, including the petitioner, had assured her of the principal accused’s business acumen as part of a criminal conspiracy. The petitioner was specifically accused of being introduced to the second respondent by the principal accused and being part of the gang that defrauded her.

An FIR was registered on August 2, 2020, and a charge sheet was filed on February 14, 2022, against the petitioner and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation), 379 (theft), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 180 (refusing to sign statement) of the IPC. The charge sheet did not clearly specify the petitioner’s role in the cheating but referred to her as a conspirator. It also mentioned that the petitioner had joined the investigation after securing anticipatory bail and made a confessional statement, which she later refused to sign.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The criminal court took cognizance of the offense based on the charge sheet, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kurukshetra, framed charges against the accused on July 18, 2022. The petitioner challenged this order in revision before the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Kurukshetra, who dismissed the revision on September 27, 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), seeking to quash the charge sheet and the orders of the CJM and ASJ. The High Court, relying on judicial precedents, found sufficient material against the petitioner and dismissed the petition on November 11, 2022. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). The relevant sections include:

• Section 420 of the IPC: This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 406 of the IPC: This section pertains to criminal breach of trust.
• Section 506 of the IPC: This section addresses the offense of criminal intimidation.
• Section 379 of the IPC: This section defines the offense of theft.
• Section 120B of the IPC: This section deals with the offense of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 180 of the IPC: This section addresses the offense of refusing to sign a statement to a public servant.
• Section 173(2) of the Cr.PC: This section deals with the police report after investigation.
• Section 397 of the Cr.PC: This section provides for the power of revision.
• Section 482 of the Cr.PC: This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 161 of the Cr.PC: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.
• Section 162 of the Cr.PC: This section deals with statements to police not to be signed by the person making it.

These provisions are part of the criminal justice system designed to address offenses against property, trust, and public order. The Cr.PC provides the procedural framework for investigation, trial, and appeal in criminal cases.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions:

• The petitioner argued that the charge sheet does not clearly specify her role in the alleged cheating or defrauding of the second respondent.
• The petitioner contended that she was merely referred to as a conspirator, without any specific evidence of her involvement in the crime.
• The petitioner submitted additional documents, including an agreement between the principal accused and the second respondent, to show that the principal accused was solely responsible for the money received.
• The petitioner relied on the statement of the second respondent under Section 161 of the Cr.PC, to argue that the statement did not establish her role other than being present when the money was counted.
• The petitioner argued that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings since there was no prima facie case against her.

State’s Submissions:

• The State argued that there was sufficient material against the petitioner, including her presence when the money was counted and her alleged involvement in the conspiracy.
• The State highlighted that the petitioner had made a confessional statement during the investigation, which she later refused to sign.
• The State submitted that the investigation revealed the petitioner’s involvement, even if limited, and that the trial should be allowed to proceed.
• The State contended that the High Court was correct in not interfering with the trial court’s decision to frame charges.
• The State argued that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not relevant at this stage and could be used for her defence during trial.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioner’s argument was innovative in that it attempted to use the complainant’s own statement to show that her role was limited to counting the money and not active participation in the cheating. The state’s argument was conventional, relying on the charge sheet and the investigation to show that there was sufficient material for the trial to proceed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC seeking to quash the charge sheet and the proceedings against the petitioner?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra [CITATION], laid down the principles for quashing criminal proceedings. The Court relied on this case to establish that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
• The Court referred to Section 162 of the Cr.PC to highlight that statements made to police officers during investigation are not required to be signed by the person making the statement.
• The Court referred to Section 180 of the IPC to clarify that it is attracted only when a person refuses to sign a statement which a public servant is legally competent to require the person to sign.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court must only look at the allegations and the materials collected during the investigation to determine if a prima facie case exists. The court emphasized that it is not to conduct a mini-trial at this stage. The court considered the following points:

• The allegations against the petitioner, including her presence when the money was counted and her alleged involvement in the conspiracy, could not be ruled out at the stage of framing of charges.
• The Court acknowledged that the charge sheet did not clearly specify her role but noted that she was referred to as a conspirator.
• The Court emphasized that conspiracy to commit an offense is a distinct offense, and the allegations against the petitioner were sufficient to warrant a trial.
• The Court also noted that the documents submitted by the petitioner were not relevant at this stage.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the alternative interpretation that the petitioner’s role was limited to just counting the money. The Court concluded that the allegations, along with the materials collected during the investigation, were sufficient to form a prima facie opinion that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy. The Court held that it was not the stage to delve deep into the records and that the trial should be allowed to proceed.

The Court held that the High Court was correct in not interfering with the trial court’s decision to frame charges. The court stated that “it is not one of those rare cases where the uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner.” The court also stated that “the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into.” The court further noted that “the allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the power to quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage should be used sparingly.
• The Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court should only look at the allegations and the materials collected during the investigation to determine if a prima facie case exists.
• The Court clarified that conspiracy is a distinct offense, and even limited involvement can warrant a trial.
• The Court also highlighted that the statements made to police officers during investigation are not required to be signed by the person making the statement.
• The Court cautioned police officers to be aware of legal provisions and the impact that ignorance of legal provisions could have on pending criminal proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Haryana, to ensure that police officers at all levels are made aware of the legal provisions and the impact that ignorance of legal provisions could have on pending criminal proceedings. The Court clarified that this was not for the purpose of initiating any action adverse to the interest of the deponent of the reply affidavit but to ensure that there is no recurrence of similar such incident.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the Court should be reluctant to quash criminal proceedings at the initial stage if there is a prima facie case made out against the accused. The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra regarding the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision not to quash the charges against the petitioner. The Court found that there was sufficient material to form a prima facie opinion that the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy to cheat the second respondent. The Court emphasized that the trial should be allowed to proceed and that the petitioner’s involvement, however limited, could not be ruled out at this stage. The judgment underscores the principle that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and that the trial court should be allowed to determine the outcome of the case based on the evidence presented during the trial.