Summary
The Court restored criminal proceedings against the second accused in a case involving alleged recruitment fraud and fatal poisoning. The allegations about her assurances and introduction of the principal accused, recovery of money from her house and calls near the incident created sufficient grounds to proceed. The High Court had prematurely weighed whether the evidence would secure conviction. The complainant’s appeal was allowed, leaving admissibility, the source of the recovered money and ultimate guilt for determination at trial.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could quash the charge-sheet by assessing the likelihood of conviction despite material raising strong suspicion against the second accused.
Provisions considered
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court exceeded the proper scope of quashing by appreciating the evidence as at trial rather than considering whether the material disclosed grounds to proceed. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 8, 9, 10)
Held
- At the relevant preliminary stage, the material had to be assessed at face value to determine whether the alleged offences’ ingredients and grounds for proceeding were disclosed. The court was not to decide, by weighing the evidence on merits, whether conviction was likely. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 9)
- The allegations of arranging employment, introduction of the principal accused, recovery of Rs 1.20 lakh from the second accused’s house at her instance, and proximate telephone contacts supplied material raising strong suspicion. The High Court had not properly accounted for that cumulative material. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- The possible inadmissibility of the alleged confession did not justify disregarding the associated recovery at this stage. Whether the recovered money was the money paid by the complainant and deceased was a question for evidence at trial, rather than a basis for conclusively terminating proceedings. (¶ 8)
- The quashing order was set aside and the Magistrate directed to proceed according to law. All observations were confined to the Section 482 issue; trial merits were to be determined independently on evidence. (¶¶ 10, 11)
Result
Appeal allowed; charge-sheet and criminal proceedings against the second accused restored for further proceedings on their merits.