IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.855 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7252 OF 2016)
SASIKALA PUSHPA AND OTHERS …Appellants
STATE OF TAMIL NADU …Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.856 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7287 OF 2016)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.857 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8206 OF 2016)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.858 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9064 OF 2016)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 859 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9065 OF 2016)
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Signature Not Verified
2. These appeals [SLP(Crl.) Nos.7252, 7287 and 8206 of Digitally sealed by 2016] arise out of a visualisation antiquated 14.09.2016 upheld by a MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.05.07 15:13:46 IST Reason:
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissing anticipatory bail application in Crl. OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 filed by a appellants. By a same judgment, a schooled Single Judge of a High Court destined a Registrar (Judicial) to board a censure with a jurisdictional military hire opposite a appellants with honour to a purported forgery committed by them in signing a vakalatnama. Pursuant to a instruction of a High Court, a Registrar (Judicial) lodged a censure with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016, on a basement of which, FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 for a offences punishable underneath Sections 193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC was purebred opposite a appellants.
3. The initial appellant was a afterwards Member of Rajya Sabha and diminished Member of AIADMK Political Party. The third appellant is a father of a initial appellant. A censure was filed by one Banumathi who was afterwards operative as lassie in a residence of a appellants in a year 2011 alleging that she was intimately tormented while she was operative in a residence of a appellants. Based on a pronounced complaint, a rapist box was purebred opposite all a appellants in Crime No.5/2016 in All Women’s Police Station underneath Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354(A) and 506(i) IPC and underneath Section 4 of a Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The initial appellant denied all a allegations and claimed that a same was outcome of domestic fight opposite her.
4. The appellants filed bail focus underneath Section 438 Cr.P.C. in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016 opposite a pronounced offences before a Madurai Bench of Madras High Court along with vakalatnama temperament a signature of appellants No.1 and 3 antiquated 18.08.2016. The initial appellant left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016. While filing bail focus in Crl.OP(MD) No.15370 of 2016, a appellants filed vakalatnama wherein it was staid that a pronounced vakalatnama was sealed by a appellants before Advocate Mr. Vijaykumar on 17.08.2016 during Madurai. Challenging a maintainability of a bail petition and a vakalatnama, a respondent-State filed rough objections and submitted that appellant No.1 had left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 during 23.15 hours. Similarly, appellant No.3 had left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016 during 09.30 AM. It was purported that a appellants filed anticipatory bail focus on 18.08.2016 as if they were benefaction in Madurai on 17.08.2016 and sealed a confirmation and vakalatnama in a participation of an disciple during Madurai. The High Court vide method antiquated 23.08.2016 destined a appellants to seem before a probity on 29.08.2016 and to give their reason with courtesy to a pronounced rough objection. Accordingly, a appellants seemed before a probity on a pronounced date and submitted their confirmation before a High Court saying that a date mentioned in a vakalatnama was an unconsidered mistake.
5. In a impugned judgment, a High Court reason that a explanations given by a appellants are not acceptable and a same is paradoxical to a created chronicle as contained in a vakalatnama. Referring to a confirmation filed by a appellants, a High Court forked out that appellant No.1 has given reason that she never came to Madurai for signing a vakalatnama and that she had never sealed a vakalatnama in a participation of disciple Mr. Vijaykumar during Madurai. The schooled Single Judge therefore reason that prima facie, it appears that a request has been fake and a same has been sealed and executed outward Madurai and constructed before this probity as though, it has been sealed and executed during Madurai and a same has been employed and filed before a High Court. On a above findings, a High Court destined a Registrar (Judicial) to board a censure against a appellants with a jurisdictional military station. Pursuant to a instruction of a High Court, a Registrar (Judicial) lodged a censure with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016. Based on a censure lodged by a Registrar (Judicial) of a High Court, FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 was purebred with K. Pudur Police Station, Madurai on 19.09.2016 for a offences punishable underneath Sections 193, 466, 468 and 471 IPC.
6. Being aggrieved, a appellants have filed these appeals. By a method antiquated 26.09.2016, a Supreme Court destined that no coercive movement be taken opposite a appellants in Crime No.1331/2016 and also in Crime No.5/2016 and postulated halt insurance to a appellants from arrest.
7. It has been urged by Mr. Sanjay Hegde, schooled comparison warn appearing for a appellants that a High Court erred in not deliberation a fact that a vakalatnama contains a signature of a appellants and that a date thereon is a quite ecclesiastic error. It was submitted that a High Court has not available a anticipating to a outcome that it is ‘expedient in a seductiveness of justice’ to board a censure opposite a appellants and a High Court erred in outset directions to board a censure to the military for induction rapist box opposite a appellants. Further, it was contended that a High Court also erred in law in treating a vakalatnama filed by a appellants as a categorical reason for dismissing a anticipatory bail application.
8. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, schooled warn appearing for a State of Tamil Nadu submitted that a High Court has definitely found that a initial appellant has not sealed a vakalatnama in Madurai on 18.08.2016 and therefore, a appellants have committed rascal on a probity and a High Court righteously released directions to a Registrar for camp censure opposite a appellants. The schooled warn offer submitted that a initial appellant being a afterwards Member of Parliament and her husband- a third appellant being a businessman and successful chairman are not auxiliary with a review and a initial appellant has given shy respond to a questions lifted by a Investigation Officer. It was submitted that no drift are done out for environment aside a directions released by a High Court and for quashing of a FIR No.1331/2016 purebred on a directions of a High Court. The schooled warn placed faith on Sachida Nand Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (1998) 2 SCC 493.
9. We have delicately warn a submissions and perused a impugned visualisation and other materials placed on record. The indicate descending for care is either in a contribution and resources of a case, a probity was right in outset directions to board a censure opposite a appellants before a endangered military hire for forgery and for origination of fake document.
10. It is sincerely good staid that before camp of a complaint, it is compulsory that a probity contingency be confident that it was judicious in a seductiveness of probity to board a complaint. It is not compulsory that a probity contingency use a tangible difference of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; yet a probity should record a anticipating indicating a compensation that it is judicious in a seductiveness of probity that an enquiry should be made. Observing that underneath Section 340 Cr.P.C., a assign is to be launched usually if it is judicious in a seductiveness of probity and not on small allegations or to absolve personal vendetta, In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, this Court reason as under:-
“23. In perspective of a denunciation used in Section 340 CrPC a probity is not firm to make a censure per elect of an corruption referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as a territory is conditioned by a difference “court is of opinion that it is judicious in a interests of justice”. This shows that such a march will be adopted usually if a seductiveness of probity requires and not in each case. Before filing of a complaint, a probity might reason a rough enquiry and record a anticipating to a outcome that it is judicious in a interests of probity that enquiry should be done into any of a offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This profitableness will routinely be judged by a probity by weighing not a bulk of repairs suffered by a chairman influenced by such forgery or fake document, yet carrying courtesy to a outcome or impact, such elect of corruption has on administration of justice. It is illusive that such fake request or forgery might means a really critical or estimable repairs to a chairman in a clarity that it might dispossess him of a really profitable skill or standing or a like, yet such request might be usually a square of justification constructed or given in justification in court, where saturated justification might have been adduced and a outcome of such square of justification on a extended judgment of administration of probity might be minimal. In such circumstances, a probity might not cruise it judicious in a seductiveness of probity to make a complaint. ……”
11. Before move to make a censure per elect of an corruption referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., a probity contingency prove itself that “it is judicious in a seductiveness of justice”. The denunciation in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a march will be adopted usually if a seductiveness of probity requires and not in each case. It has to be seen in a contribution and resources of a benefaction box either any prima facie box is done out for forgery or creation a fake request warranting issuance of directions for camp a censure underneath Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.
12. Based on a censure of one Banumathi for a purported harassment, a box in Crime No.5/2016 underneath Sections 294(b), 323, 344, 354-A and 506(i) IPC and Section 4 of a Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 was purebred opposite a appellants. Appellant No.1 filed anticipatory bail focus No.1627/2016 before a High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi vide method antiquated 11.08.2016 postulated halt insurance to a appellants and destined a appellants to relief a pill before a probity of efficient office in a State of Tamil Nadu or a High Court of Madras. The High Court of Delhi destined that no coercive movement be taken opposite a appellants in FIR No.5/2016 compartment 22.08.2016 theme to their fasten a review as and when destined by a Investigating Officer.
13. Pursuant to a method of a High Court of Delhi, a appellants filed anticipatory bail focus before a High Court of Madras during Madurai Bench in Bail Application No.15370/2016 on 18.08.2016. In a pronounced application, rough conflict was lifted by a State alleging “that a appellants have played rascal on a probity by filing a vakalatnama sealed by them on 17.08.2016 attested by an disciple from Madurai as if appellants No.1 and 3 were benefaction in Madurai on 17.08.2016 since appellant No.1 left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016”. The third appellant left for Singapore from Bengaluru on 18.08.2016. Alleging that they have filed fake vakalatnama, a respondent-State lifted conflict for maintainability of a petition. In a meanwhile, on 22.08.2016, a Investigating Officer enclosed Section 9(I)(n) review with Section 10, Section 16 review with Section 17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in Crime No.5/2016.
14. The High Court deserted a anticipatory bail focus and declined to extend pre-arrest bail in Crime No.5/2016. The High Court reason that a initial appellant never came to Madurai for signing a vakalatnama in a participation of disciple Vijaykumar and therefore, prima facie it appears that a request has been fake and a same has been sealed and executed outward Madurai as yet it has been sealed and executed during Madurai and a same has been employed by a appellants before a court. Placing faith on Sachida Nand Singh, a High Court celebrated that a act committed by a appellants volume to fraud played on a probity and thus, destined a Registrar (Judicial) to board a censure opposite all a appellants who sealed a vakalatnama in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016.
15. In a benefaction appeals, we are especially endangered with a commentary of a High Court that by filing a vakalatnama in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016, a appellants have played rascal on a probity and a distribution of a instruction to a Registrar (Judicial) to board a censure opposite a appellants for forgery. As forked out earlier, a appellants have filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016 on 18.08.2016 in that they have filed a vakalatnama wherein it had been staid as under:- “Executed before me this 17th day of August, 2016. Before me, S. Vijaykumar, No.51 law Chambers, High Court Madurai.” The above chronicle in a vakalatnama looks as if appellants No.1 and 3 have sealed a vakalatnama in Madurai on 17.08.2016; yet indeed a initial appellant did not revisit Madurai and left for Singapore from New Delhi on 17.08.2016 during 11.15 PM. It is impending to note that in a confirmation filed by a appellants before a High Court on 29.08.2016, a initial appellant has taken a defence that there has been a ecclesiastic error. Appellant No.1 has staid that on 16.08.2016, she and her son-appellant No.2 sealed the vakalatnama in New Delhi and that a same was sealed by appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru. It is staid that after receiving a vakalatnama, appellant No.3 reached Madurai on a same day dusk by highway and handed over it to a warn and returned behind to Bengaluru by highway on a same day and thereafter, appellant No.3 left for Singapore in a morning of 18.08.2016 during 09.30 AM. According to a appellants, when a vakalatnama was filed in a High Court of Madras during Madurai Bench, it was incorrectly available that it has been sealed on 18.08.2016 in Madurai. The reason given by a appellants appears to be trustworthy and we find no reason to mistrust a same and their confirmation antiquated 29.08.2016.
16. A vakalatnama is usually a request that authorizes an disciple to seem on interest of a celebration and by and large, it has no temperament on a merits of a case. We find force in a row of a schooled comparison warn for a appellants that there is no reason as to since a celebration would deliberately allow a fake date and place in a vakalatnama. Appellant No.1 left for Singapore from New Delhi on a night of 17.08.2016 and appellant No.3 left for Singapore from Bengaluru on a morning of 18.08.2016 during 09.30 AM that fact certified by both a parties. In a confirmation filed before a High Court, a initial appellant clearly staid that she and her son appellant No.2 sealed a vakalatnama on 16.08.2016 and a same was sent to her husband-appellant No.3 who was in Bengaluru who in spin handed over a same to a disciple during Madurai. The appellants have certified their signatures in a vakalatnama. The method of events as staid in a confirmation of a appellants, in a view, do not make out a box of forgery. The High Court has not available any anticipating as to since it deserted a defence of a appellants done in a confirmation that has also been reiterated by them in their reason before a probity when they privately seemed before a court.
17. Mr. Yogesh Kanna, a schooled warn appearing for a State of Tamil Nadu placed faith on Sachida Nand Singh and submitted that even if any corruption involving forgery of request is committed outward a precincts of a probity and prolonged before a prolongation in a court, a same would also be treated as one inspiring a administration of justice. After referring to several judgments, in Sachida Nand Singh, it was reason as under:- “11. The range of a rough enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of a Code is to discern either any corruption inspiring administration of probity has been committed in honour of a request constructed in probity or given in justification in a move in that Court. In other words, a corruption should have been committed during a time when a request was in custodia legis.
12. It would be a stretched meditative that any corruption involving forgery of a request if committed distant outward a precincts of a Court and prolonged before a prolongation in a Court, could also be treated as one inspiring administration of probity merely since that request after reached a probity records.”
18. There could be no dual views about a tender that even if forgery is committed outward a precincts of a probity and prolonged before a prolongation in a court, it would also be treated as one inspiring a administration of justice. But in a benefaction case, a vakalatnama filed by a appellants in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15370/2016 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.5/2016 can't be pronounced to be a fake document. As forked out earlier, a appellants have certified their signatures in a vakalatnama. They usually lay that it was incorrectly available that it has been sealed on 18.08.2016 during Madurai in a participation of a advocate. Of course, a chronicle in a vakalatnama is an improper statement. In a opinion, a High Court was not fit in terming a pronounced mistake or blunder as fraud. Fraud implies intentionally dishonesty destined or achieving some prejudicial benefit or causing prejudicial detriment or repairs to another. Intention being a mens rea is a essential part to reason that a rascal has been played on a court. The schooled warn for a State has submitted that on hearing of a signature in a vakalatnama, a hand-writing consultant has opined that it is not a signature of a appellants and therefore, a goal of a appellants to emanate a fake request has been clearly done out. We do not find any consequence in a acquiescence as a appellants themselves certified their signatures in a vakalatnama. In a light of a matter of a appellants revelation their signatures in a vakalatnama, we do not cruise that a opinion of a hand- essay consultant would mount on any aloft footing. There is zero on record to advise that a appellants gained anything by personification rascal or practising deception. In a deficiency of any element to transparent a allegations, in a view, a High Court was not fit in accusing a appellants fraud.
19. Even presumption that a chronicle in a vakalatnama is wrong, small improper matter in a vakalatnama would not volume to emanate a fake request and it can't be a reason for sportive a office underneath Section 340 Cr.P.C. for distribution of instruction to board a rapist censure opposite a appellants.
20. In Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel (2017) 1 SCC 117, this Court reason that before move underneath Section 340 Cr.P.C., a probity has to be confident about a warn fabrication on a matter of piece and there contingency be a reasonable substructure for a charge. Observing that some oversight in a matter or small fake matter might not entice a prosecution, it was reason as under:-
“6. The small fact that a chairman has done a paradoxical matter in a legal move is not by itself always sufficient to transparent a assign underneath Sections 199 and 200 of a Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”); yet it contingency be shown that a suspect has intentionally given a fake matter during any theatre of a legal record or built fake justification for a purpose of regulating a same during any theatre of a legal proceedings. Even after a above position has emerged also, still a probity has to form an opinion that it is judicious in a interests of probity to trigger an exploration into a offences of fake justification and offences opposite open probity and some-more privately referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, carrying courtesy to a altogether significant pattern as good as a illusive consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178). The probity contingency be confident that such an exploration is compulsory in a interests of probity and suitable in a contribution of a case.” The same perspective was quoted with capitulation in Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of M.P. (2018) 6 SCC 15.
21. Applying a ratio of a above decisions, in a view, there is no prima facie justification to uncover that a appellants had dictated to means repairs or repairs or any other acts. Since a doubtful chronicle in a vakalatnama appears to be an unconsidered mistake with no goal to make misrepresentation, in a view, a instruction of a High Court to board a rapist censure opposite a appellants can't be postulated and a same is probable to be set aside.
22. The schooled warn for a State submitted that in Crime No.1331/2016, rapist box was purebred formed on a instruction of a High Court and on execution of a investigation, assign piece has also been filed. As reason in Pepsi Foods Limited and another v. Special Judge Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749, summoning of an indicted in a rapist box is a critical thing; some-more so to face a hearing in rapist box purebred with a instruction of a High Court. Since a appellants themselves have certified their signatures in a vakalatnama and a chronicle in a vakalatnama that they have sealed during Madurai on 18.08.2016 is an advertent mistake, in a view, even if a hearing proceeds, there might not be any probability of the appellants being convicted for a purported offences of forgery and for creation fake document.
23. In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another (2006) 7 SCC 188, it was reason as under:-
“7. Exercise of energy underneath Section 482 of a Code in a box of this inlet is a difference and not a rule. The territory does not consult any new powers on a High Court. It usually saves a fundamental energy that a Court hexed before a dramatization of a Code. It envisages 3 resources underneath that a fundamental office might be exercised, namely, (i) to give outcome to an method underneath a Code, (ii) to forestall abuse of a routine of court, and (iii) to differently secure a ends of justice. It is conjunction illusive nor fascinating to lay down any resistant sequence that would oversee a practice of fundamental jurisdiction. …….. In practice of a powers a probity would be fit to stifle any move if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of a routine of probity or quashing of these record would differently offer a ends of justice. When no corruption is disclosed by a complaint, a probity might inspect a doubt of fact. When a censure is sought to be quashed, it is slight to demeanour into a materials to cruise what a complainant has purported and either any corruption is done out even if a allegations are supposed in toto.”
24. In a contribution and resources of a benefaction case, in a view, no useful purpose would be served by move with a rapist assign opposite a appellants. Without offer going into a merits of a case, we stifle a FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 and also stifle a assign piece tentative before a endangered Magistrate. The FIR and a assign piece are quashed usually in a contribution and resources of a benefaction box and to accommodate a ends of justice. It is done transparent that holding advantage of quashing of a case, a appellants shall not review to any offer material proceedings.
25. Crime No.5/2016:- In a impugned order, a High Court has declined to extend anticipatory bail to a appellants. The Supreme Court vide method antiquated 26.09.2016 postulated halt insurance to a appellants in Crime No.5/2016 purebred in All Women’s Police Station, Pudukkottai, Tuticorin district. The schooled comparison warn appearing for a appellants submitted that a appellants have compromised a matter with a plant Banumathi and that formed on a compromise, they have already filed stifle petition before a High Court of Madras in that a High Court has destined a parties to proceed a endangered military station. We are not prone to go into a merits of a pronounced matter, solely to extend halt insurance postulated to a appellants in Crime No.5/2016 compartment a ordering of a pronounced case.
26. Crime No.276/2016:- On 11.10.2016, a appellants along with other indicted are pronounced to have caused repairs to a household articles and automobile of one Suganthi who was a disciple for a victim-Banumathi in Crime No.5/2016. Based on a censure lodged by one Muthu-a relations of a pronounced Suganthi, a rapist box was purebred opposite a appellants underneath Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(II) IPC and underneath Section 3 of a Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992) in Crime No.276/2016 of Thisayanvilai Police Station, Tirunelveli. The appellants have filed a anticipatory bail focus before a High Court and by method antiquated 18.11.2016, a High Court postulated anticipatory bail to appellants No.2 and 3 and a schooled Single Judge took a perspective that custodial inquire of appellant No.1 is compulsory and declined to extend anticipatory bail to appellant No.1. The method antiquated 18.11.2016 is a theme matter of plea in SLP(Crl.) Nos.9064/2016 and 9065/2016. When a matter came adult for acknowledgment before this Court, vide method antiquated 22.11.2016, this Court has postulated halt insurance to appellant No.1. Therefore, box opposite a appellants was purebred underneath Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992) in Crime No.276/2016 (Thisayanvilai, Thirunelveli). The High Court declined anticipatory bail to a initial appellant by holding that her custodial inquire is compulsory since appellants No.2 and 3 were postulated anticipatory bail.
27. In a result, all a appeals are likely of as under:- SLP(Crl.) No.7252/2016:- The impugned method of a High Court outset instruction to board rapist censure opposite a appellants is set aside and a interest is allowed. Considering a contribution and resources of a case, a FIR in Crime No.1331/2016 (K. Pudur Police Station) and a assign piece filed thereon are quashed and a interest is authorised accordingly. As forked out in para No.(23), holding advantage of a quashing of a FIR in Crime No.1331 of 2016, a appellants shall not review to any offer or material proceedings.
28. SLP(Crl.) Nos.7287/2016 and 8206/2016:- The halt insurance postulated to a appellants in Crime No.5/2016 (AWPS, Pudukkottai, Tuticorin District) is extended compartment a ordering of a rapist box outset out of Crime No.5/2016.
29. SLP(Crl.) Nos.9064/2016 and 9065/2016:- The halt insurance postulated to a appellants by a method antiquated 22.11.2016 in Crime No.276/2016 (Thisayanvilai Police Station, Thirunelveli) is extended compartment a ordering of a rapist box outset out of Crime No.276/2016. The appellants are postulated anticipatory bail in Crime No.276/2016 that shall reason good compartment a ordering of a rapist case. So distant as quashing of rapist box in Crime No.276/2016, a appellants are during autocracy to proceed a High Court and a High Court shall cruise a same on a possess merits.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER] New Delhi;
May 07, 2019