Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by Supriya Jain against the State of Haryana and another respondent, quashing the criminal proceedings against her. The case originated from an FIR registered on 2nd August 2020 under Sections 406, 420, 506, and 120B IPC, based on a complaint by the second respondent alleging that she was induced to part with Rs. 45 lakh for establishing a pharma company. The appellant, sister of the principal accused, was implicated merely because she was introduced to the complainant and was alleged to be part of a gang. The charge-sheet filed on 14th February 2022 added Sections 379 and 180 IPC, but did not specify any overt act by the appellant except referring to her as a conspirator and noting that she made a confessional statement which she later refused to sign. The Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charges on 18th July 2022. The appellant challenged the charges before the High Court, which dismissed her petition. The Supreme Court observed that the FIR and charge-sheet lacked specific allegations against the appellant, and her mere introduction or refusal to sign a statement did not constitute an offence under Section 180 IPC. The Court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process and quashed the charges, allowing the appeal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Lack of Specific Allegations - Sections 406, 420, 506, 120B, 379, 180 IPC - The appellant was charged based on a complaint where she was merely introduced as a sister of the principal accused and no specific role was attributed to her in the cheating or conspiracy - The charge-sheet also failed to specify her role except as a conspirator and added Section 180 IPC for refusing to sign a confessional statement - Held that continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the charges (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed in the absence of any specific allegation of her involvement in the alleged offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.
Law Points
- Criminal conspiracy requires meeting of minds and specific overt acts
- mere presence or introduction not sufficient
- Section 180 IPC requires wilful refusal to sign statement
- charge-sheet must disclose role of accused
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No. 1780 of 2023 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 3662 of 2023)
State of Haryana and Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing the petition for quashing of charges framed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of criminal proceedings and charges against the appellant.
Filing Reason
The appellant was charged under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120B, 379, and 180 IPC despite no specific allegations of her involvement in the alleged cheating and conspiracy.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra framed charges on 18th July 2022. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition for quashing.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed in the absence of any specific allegation of her involvement in the alleged offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the FIR and charge-sheet contain no specific allegations against her except that she was introduced by the principal accused and that she refused to sign a confessional statement.
The respondent argued that the appellant was a conspirator and that the charge under Section 180 IPC was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
Continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would be an abuse of the process of law as there are no specific allegations of her involvement in the alleged offences, and the charge under Section 180 IPC is not made out.
Judgment Excerpts
Perusal of the charge-sheet, however, does not reveal any role of the petitioner in respect of the offence under section 379 of the IPC which was added in the FIR...
Insofar as the role of the petitioner is concerned, the second respondent alleged that the petitioner was introduced to her by the principal accused and that she is a member of the gang which cheated and defrauded her.
We have noticed that the charge-sheet that came to be submitted before the criminal court does not also specify with clarity the role of the petitioner...
Procedural History
FIR No.658 dated 2nd August 2020 was registered at Thanesar city Police Station under Sections 406, 420, 506, 120B IPC. Investigation culminated in charge-sheet dated 14th February 2022 under Sections 420, 406, 506, 379, 120B, 180 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra framed charges on 18th July 2022. The appellant filed a petition for quashing before the High Court, which was dismissed. The appellant then filed Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1780 of 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 406, 420, 506, 120B, 379, 180
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 173(2)
