SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) SARANYA — Appellant Vs. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2021 Decided on: 24-08-2021

GOOD DAY
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIVISION BENCH
( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )
SARANYA — Appellant
Vs.
BHARATHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2021
Decided on: 24-08-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) – Sections 326, 307, 302, 420 r/w 34 – Quashing of criminal
proceedings – Stage of framing of charge – High Court must keep in mind
while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./at the stage
of framing of the charge – Strong suspicion against respondent who was
serving in the Secretariat and was in touch with the deceased and
complainant as she used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and
she introduced A1 to complainant and deceased – It is specifically alleged
that she said that respondent can manage to get the job/employment for
the deceased but for that they have to pay – It is true that as per the case
of the prosecution and even as per the statement of the complainant, an
amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to A1 – However, during the course of the
investigation, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered
from the house of respondent at the instance of herself – It may be true
that the so-called confessional statement of respondent is inadmissible
in evidence – However, it is to be noted that on the basis of such
statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from the
house of respondent – Other aspect whether the recovered amount of Rs.
1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount which was given by the
deceased and complainant to A1 is a matter of evidence to be considered
during trial – Even the source of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be
explained by the accused – High Court has entered into the appreciation
of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the
accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not permissible
at all at this stage while considering the application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was
not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of
conviction or acquittal.
Cases Referred
 Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460
 Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605
 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak, reported in (2019) 13 SCC 62
 State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198
Counsel for Appearing Parties
Mr. G.S. Mani, Advocate, Ms. Khushboo Tomar, Advocate, Mr. G. Ganesh Kumar, Advocate,
Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M.P.
Parthiban, Advocate, Mr. A.S.Vairawan, Advocate, Mr. R. Sudhakaran, Advocate, Mrs. Shalini
Mishra, Advocate, Mr. T Hari Hara Sudhan, Advocate, Mr. Vikash G R, Advocate, Dr. Joseph
Aristotle S., Advocate, Ms. Preeti Singh, Advocate, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
JUDGMENT
M.R. Shah, J. – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal
OP No. 1443 of 2020, by which the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482