"Supreme Court Criticises 'Casual and Cursory' Quashing of Cheating Case, Orders Trial Under Section 420 IPC: 'Least Expected Was Reasoned Assessment'"
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court of India, partly allowed an appeal filed against a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stated on a criminal appeal challenging the High Court’s quashing of FIR proceedings under Sections 306 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). While upholding the High Court’s quashing under Section 306 IPC, the Supreme Court set aside the quashing under Section 420 IPC and directed the trial court to proceed in accordance with law.
The appeal arose from a judgment delivered on September 3, 2024, by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 5821 of 2024. The petition had been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) by respondents 2 to 4 seeking quashing of FIR and further investigation in Crime Case No. 172 of 2024.
The appellant is the widow of a deceased individual who was a partner in M/s. Soundarya Constructions along with respondents 2 and 3. Respondent 4 was working as the manager of the said firm. The deceased was found dead by hanging at his residence on April 14, 2024. A panchnama and inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. concluded it was a case of suicide, and an Unnatural Death Report (UDR No. 15 of 2024) was filed, closing the case.
On May 22, 2024, approximately 39 days after the incident, the appellant lodged a complaint upon discovering a death note in the deceased’s wardrobe. She alleged the note was in the handwriting of the deceased and implicated respondents 2 and 3 in cheating him of Rs. 60 crores. The note mentioned forgery of signatures on blank cheques and documents, mortgaging of personal property, and financial deception, allegedly leading the deceased to commit suicide. Respondent 4 was also alleged to be complicit.
On the basis of this complaint, Crime Case No. 172 of 2024 was registered for offences under Sections 306, 420, and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Respondents 2 to 4 then approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR and investigation.
The High Court quashed the FIR on grounds that the allegations lacked proximity required for abetment under Section 306 IPC. Regarding Section 420 IPC, it held that since the alleged deceit occurred during the deceased’s lifetime, the right to lodge a complaint vested in the deceased alone.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant filed a special leave petition, which was admitted on November 5, 2024.
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Counsel Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale contended that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by virtually conducting a mini-trial. He argued that the FIR contained allegations which, if taken at face value, could establish offences under Sections 306 and 420 IPC. He further submitted that there was sufficient material seized during investigation indicating cheating, forgery, and breach of trust.
Opposing the appeal, Senior Counsel Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, representing respondents 2 to 4, maintained that the FIR lacked the requisite elements to establish either abetment of suicide or cheating. He submitted that the High Court had properly evaluated the materials and passed a well-reasoned order.
Learned counsel Shri D.L. Chidananda, appearing for respondent No. 1 (State of Karnataka), supported the appeal. He stated that the investigation revealed sufficient material to proceed under Sections 306 and 420 IPC.
Addressing the allegations concerning Section 306 IPC, the Court examined the FIR contents in detail. The bench recorded: "the case of the appellant-complainant is that even much before her husband died, he used to be blackmailed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3... whenever he received such calls, he was completely upset and had decided to commit suicide."
The Court noted the delay between the date of death (April 14, 2024) and the date of filing the FIR (May 22, 2024), and stated: "it is apparent from the material on record that all these allegations were an afterthought."
Relying on precedent from Prakash and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another, the Court stated: "there must be a close proximity between the positive act of instigation by the accused person and the commission of suicide by the victim." It further added: "there is no reasonable nexus between the period to which the allegations pertain and the date of death."
Accordingly, the Court held: "even taking the allegations at its face value, it cannot be said that the allegations would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide."
Turning to the quashing under Section 420 IPC, the Court noted that the High Court had summarily dismissed the possibility of such an offence being made out by stating that the deceased could have filed a complaint during his lifetime. The Supreme Court observed: "If the learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that even investigation papers as collected by the investigating agency did not constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, then the least that was expected... was to give reasons..."
It held: "the learned Single Judge of the High Court, in our view, while quashing the proceedings under Section 420 of IPC, has acted in a casual and cursory manner."
The Court passed the following order:
The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5821 of 2024, insofar as it quashes the proceedings under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is upheld.
However, the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the same appeal, insofar as it quashes the proceedings under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the learned trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law with respect to the case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court added a clarification: "in the event respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are of the view that even the material collected by the investigating agency is not sufficient to proceed further... they will be at liberty to file an application for discharge..."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For Appellant: Shri Shanthkumar V. Mahale, Senior Counsel
For Respondents: Shri D.L. Chidananda, Counsel; Shri Dama Sheshadri Naidu, Senior Counsel
Case Title: R. Shashirekha vs State of Karnataka and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 402
Case Number: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14900 of 2024
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
