Supreme Court of India
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.versusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1193
- Decided
- 23 August 2016
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- MADAN B LOKUR
Holding
The FIR was quashed as the allegations were vague, the delay indicated malicious prosecution, the Section 174 inquiry does not constitute a cognizable FIR, and the Durg court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Summary
Manoj Kumar Sharma, a serving Flying Officer, was accused of dowry‑related offences after his wife’s death was initially investigated as a suicide under Section 174 of the CrPC and closed with no foul play. Five years later, the deceased’s brother filed an FIR alleging murder, dowry cruelty and IPC sections 304B, 498A and 34, based on anonymous letters. The Supreme Court held that the Section 174 inquiry does not constitute a cognizable FIR, the delay and vague allegations indicated malicious prosecution, and the Durg court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Ambala. Consequently, the FIR was quashed and the criminal proceedings dismissed. The Court also clarified the limited scope of Section 174 inquiries and the proper exercise of inherent power under Section 482 CrPC.
Issues considered
- The FIR registered after a five‑year delay is barred by territorial jurisdiction.
- Whether an inquiry under Section 174 of the CrPC amounts to an FIR under Section 154.
- Whether the delay and vague allegations justify quashing the FIR under Section 482.
- The scope and ambit of Section 174 inquiry vis‑à‑vis criminal investigation.
- Whether the High Court erred in refusing to quash the FIR and allow continuation of investigation.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154, s. 155, s. 156, s. 157, s. 168, s. 169, s. 170, s. 173, s. 174, s. 177, s. 178
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304B, s. 34, s. 498A
Subjects
Section 174 inquiryTerritorial jurisdictionFIR quashmentDelay in filing FIRMalicious prosecutionCriminal Procedure CodeInherent jurisdictionSection 482Dowry deathSuicide
Judgment
(2016] 7 S.C.R. 154
A MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 775of2013)
AUGUST23,2016
B
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 174:
Death of wife of appellant no. 1 at Ambala - Investigating
officer submitted report that there was no sign of foul play in the
occurrence - Magistrate accepted the final report - Since the
c appellant no. 1 was a Flying Officer at the relevant time, a Court of
lnquily was also convened to investigate into the alleged role of
appellant no. 1 which was finally closed - After 5 years of the
closing of the above case, fresh FIR was got registered by the brother
of the deceased u/ss.304B, 498A and s.34 !PC on receipt of
D anony111ous letter - High Court directed for continuance of the
investigation of the alleged offence - On s.482 petition, High Court
refused to quash the charge sheet and cognizance taken by the
Magistrate - On appeal, held: The brother of the deceased instituteq
malicious prosecution against appellant no. 1 after a period of 5
years that too on the basis of anonymous letters - Allegations were
E vague and did not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings
against the appellants - High Court failed to apply the test whether
the uncontroverted allegations as 111ade prima facie establish the
offence - FIR quashed.
Scope of inquiry u!s. 174 - Held: The proceedings u/s. 174
F have a very limited scope - The object of the proceedings is merely
to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious
circumstances or an unnatural death and if so what is the apparent
cause of the death - The question regarding the details as to how
the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or under what
circu111stances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and scope of
G
the proceedings u/s. 174 of the Code - Neither in practice nor in
law was it necessary for the police to mention those details in the
inquest report - It is, therefore, not necessary to enter all the details
of the overt acts in the inquest report.
ss.154, 174 - Information received uls. 174 whether satisfies
H the· requirement of s. 154 - The investigation on an inquiry uls.174
154
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 155
CHHATtISGARH & ANR.
is distinct from the investigation as contemplated u!s. 154 relating A
to commission of a cognizable offence - In the case on hand, there
was 110 FIR registered with the police station, neither any
investigation nor any report uls. 173 was submitted - Therefore,
challenge to the impugned FIR could not be assailed on the ground
that it was a second FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh
B
investigation of the same incident was initiated.
Investigation - Jurisdiction to investigate the crime - Jfeld:
At the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does
not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime.
Jurisdiction: Held: Territorial jurisdiction of a court with
regard to a criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the
c
place of occurrence of the incident.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Scope of 'Inquiry' u/s. 174 of the Code:
The procedure under Section 174 is for the purpose of D
discovering the cause of death, and the evidence taken was very
short. When the body cannot be found or has been buried, there
can be no investigation under Section 174. This sections is
intended to apply to cases in which an inquest is necessary. The
proceedings under this Section should be kept more distinct from
the proceedings taken on the complaint. Whereas the starting E
point of the powers of police was changed from the power of the
officer in charge of a police station to investigate into a cognizable
offence without the order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the
first information regarding commission of a cognizable offence,
whether received orally or in writing, into writing. As such, the F
objective of such placement of provisions was clear which was to
ensure that the recording of the first information should be the
starting point of any investigation by the police. The purpose of
registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation
into motion, which culminates with filing of the police report and
only after registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, G
collection of evidence during investigation and formation of the
final opinion is the sequence which results in filing of a report
under Section 173 of the Code. [Para 10) [165-D-Gl
1.2. Sections 174 and 175 of the Code afford a complete
Code in itself for the purpose of "Inquiries" in cases of accidental H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 SJ 7 S.C.R.
A or suspicious deaths and are entirely distinct from the
"investigation" under Section 157 of the Code wherein ifan officer
in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission
of an offence which he is empowered to investigate, he shall
proceed in person to the spot to investigate the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, an inquiry under
B
Section 174 of the Code was convened initially in order to ascertain
whether the death is natural or unnatural. A scrutiny of materials
on record shows that the inquiry which was conducted for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the death is natural or unnatural
cannot be categorized under information relating to the
c commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning and import
of Section 154 of the Code. On information received by P.S.
Mnlana, the police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section
174 of the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted
its report before the sub-Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that
it was a case of hanging and no cognizable offence is found to
D
have been committed. In the report, it was also mentioned that
the father of the deceased (PW-1) does not want to take any further
action in the matter. In view of that what was undertaken by the
police was an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code which was
limited to the extent of natural or unnatural death and the case
E was closed. Whereas, the condition precedent for recording of
FIR is that there must be an information and that information
must disclose a cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it
leaves no matter of doubt that the intimation was an information
of the nature contemplated under Section 174 of the Code and it
could not be categorized as information disclosing a cognizable
F
offence. Also, there is no material to show that the police after
conducting investigation submitted a report under Section 173
of the Code as contemplated, before the competent authority,
which accepted the said report and closed the case. In view of
the above, the investigation on an inquiry under Section 174 of
G the Code is distinct from the investigation as contemplated under
Section 154 of the Code relating to commission of a cognizable
offence and in the case on hand there was no FIR registered with
the P.S. Mutana neither any investigation nor any report under
Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Therefore, challenge to
impugned FIR under Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered by P.S.
H
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 157
CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Bhilai Nagar could not be assailed on the ground that it was second A
FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh investigation of
the same incident was initiated. (Paras 11, 12] (166-A-H; 167-A-B(
2.1. A reading of sections 177 and 178 would make it clear
that Section 177 provides for "ordinary" place of enquiry or trial.
Section 178, inter alia, provides for place of enquiry or trial when B
it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was
committee. or where the offence was committed partly in one local
area and p:.rtly in another and where it consisted of several acts
done in different local areas, it could be enquired into or tried by
a court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas. Hence, at
the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the SHO does c
not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. But
after the investigation is over, if the officer arrives at the
conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not
arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he will forward the
case to the Magistrate concerned empowered to take cognizance D
of the offence. In the instant case, the question of territorial
jurisdiction was just one of the grounds for quashing the
proceedings along with the other grounds and, therefore, the
High Court should have examined whether the case was fit to be
quashed on other grounds or not. The wife of appellant no. 1
committed suicide in her matrimonial home at Ambala. The E
information with regard to the said incident was forwarded to the
Police Station Mulana, District Ambala. On 22.09.1999, post
mortem on the body was conducted and the case was closed by
submitting a final report before the SDM stating that there was
no sign of foul play in the occurrence. Since the appellant No. 1 F
was a Flying Officer at the relevant time, a Court oflnquiry (Col)
was also convened to investigate into the alleged role of the
appellant No. 1 herein which was finally closed on 25.07.2000.
None of the family members of the deceased raised any doubt on
the death or named anyone in the appellant's family especially
when the father, brother and other relatives of the deceased were G
present at Ambala during the period when the investigation was
carried on. There is not even a whisper about the cruelty meted
out to her soon before her death. In fact, it is on record that the
appellant No. 1 visited Durg several times after the death of his
wife and stayed with in-laws. [Paras 13, 14) [168-D-H; 169-A-C)
H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A 2.2 The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a
criminal offence would be decided on the basis of the place of
occurrence of the incident. In the instant case, the suicide was
committed at Ambala. The Ambala police closed the case after
fulfilling the requirements of Section 174 of the Code holding
that there was no foul play in the incident and also there was no
B
requirement of lodging FIR under Section 154 as none of the
family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the
death even though the death was committed within seven years
of marriage. Also, there is no evidence of it being a continuing
offence. Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to have been
c committed wholly or partly within the local jurisdiction of the
Magistrate's Court at Durg. Prima facie, none of the ingredients
constituting the offence can be said to have occurred within the
local jurisdiction of that Court. In the case on hand, as per the
materials on record, in Crime No. 194 of 2005, charge sheet has
been filed and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg has taken
D
cognizance of the proceedings. In the present fact situation, the
Court at Durg has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and
the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction since the entire cause of action for the
alleged offence had purportedly arisen in the city of Ambala. (Paras
E -15,. 16] 1169-C-G]
-
Delay in lodging of l<'IR
3.1 In the case on hand, after 5 (five) years of the closing of
the above case under Section 174 of the Code, a fresh FIR was
registered on the basis of anonymous letters received by
F Respondent No. 2 - brother of the deceased at Durg under
Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of the Code stating that the
death of wife of appellant no.1 was a pre-planned murder. Even
after her death, the relations between appellant No. 1 and his
in-laws were cordial as can easily be seen from the evidence on
record. Appellant No. 1 met his in-laws several times at Durg.
G Neither at the time of the death nor before receiving of anonymous
letters by Respondent No. 2, was there any iota of doubt in the
minds of the respondents with regard to the appellants. Even
the father of the deceased never raised suspicion on the conduct
of his son-in-law and only after receiving of the above said letters
H by Respondent No. 2, after a lapse of 5 (five) years, he gave his
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 159
CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
deposition that his daughter was subjected to cruelty for the A
demand of dowry on the hands of the appellants herein. Delay in
lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a
creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not
only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps
in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story.
B
Such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt
about tt.e truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent No. 2
against tile appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature.
By making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent No.
2 has tried to rope the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse
of the process of law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the c
FIR deserves to be quashed. [Paras 17, 18] [169-G-H; 170-A-E)
3.2 Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must
necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
If on consideration of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied
that an offence is disclosed, it will normally not interfere with the D
investigation into the offence and will generally allow the
investigation into the offence to be completed in order to collect
materials for proving the offence. The appellants filed a petition
under Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR on 'the
ground that the FIR was filed after a delay of 5 years and is barred
by territorial jurisdiction. The High Court, on the other hand, E
after taking note of the fact that the investigation is in the final
stage in the matter and a charge sheet is ready to be filed before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ordered for its continuance
without taking into consideration that it is barred by law. The
court at Durg did not take notice of the fact that there is a legal F
bar engrafted in the matter for its continuance and the proceedings
have been maliciously instituted after a delay of five years with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the appellants.
[Paras 19, 20) [171-B-E)
4. The allegations made in the FIR are inherently
improbable and the evidence collected in support of the same do G
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the appellants herein. Further, to invoke inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court must
be fully satisfied that the material produced on record is based
on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the case on hand, H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the
deceased after a period of five years that too on the bas.is of
anonymous letters. There was no accusation against the
appellants before filing of the FIR. The allegations are vague
and do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings against
the appellants. Also, the court at Durg has no territorial
B
jurisdiction because cause of action, if any, has arisen in Ambala.
The criminal proceeding is grossly delayed and a result of belated
afterthought. The High Court failed to apply the test whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie, establish
the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any
c special features which appear in a particular case to consider
whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit
the prosecution to continue. The High Court did not apply its
mind judiciously and on an incorrect appreciation of record,
ordered for continuance of the investigation on a petition under
Section 482 of the Code. This power must be exercised
D
judiciously and not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or
capricious exercise of such power may lead to undesirable
results. (Para 22) (175-C-G)
George and Others v. State. of Kera/a and Am: (1998) 4
SCC 605 : 1998 (2) SCR 303; Suresh Red and Ors. v.
E State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 84 : 2000 (2) SCR 796;
Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar & Am: (2012) 4
SCC 379 : 2012 (5) SCR 1; State of Haryana and Ors.
v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1990
(3) Suppl. SCR 259; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan
F Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 : 2013 (3) SCR 52 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference
1998 (2) SCR 303 relied on Para 10
2000 fZ) SCR 796 relied on Para 10
G 2012 (5) SCR 1 relied on Para 18
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 relied on Para 20
2013 (3) SCR 52 relied on Para 21
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 775 of2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2012 of the High Court
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 161
CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
ofChhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Cr!. M. P. No. 765 of201 I. A
Sushi I Kumar, Sr. Adv., Aditya Kumar, Harpuneet Singh Rai, Sanjay.
Jain, Advs., with him for the Appellants.
Atul Jha, Sandeep Jha, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, K. M. Shukla,
D. Vidyanandam, Anil Kumar Jha, Advs., for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
R. K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the ·
judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 passed by the High Court of
Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 765 of
2011 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the ~
petition filed by the appellants herein. C
2. Brief facts: . >
(a) Manoj Kumar Sharma-the appellant-accused, who was serving in
the Indifl"! Air Force at the relevant time, got married to one Nandini on
27.04.1999. On 20.09.1999, Nandini Shanna (since deceased) committed
suicide at her matrimonial home. The information with regard to the D
same was lodged by the Security Officer of the Indian Air Force at
Police Station Mulana, DistrictAmbala. On 22.09.1999, post mortem
was conducted on the body of the deceased and the body was handed
over to the relatives for performing la,st rites.
(b) On 22.09.1999, the officer in-charge of the investigation, P.S. Mulana
submitted a report being No. 26 stating that there was no sign of foul E
play in the occurrence. On the basis of the investigation, on 24.01.2000,
a Final Report was submitted before the sub-Divisional Magistrate which
got accepted on 19.02.2000. Simultaneously, a Court of Inquiry (Col)
was also convened to investigate into the alleged role of the appellant-
accused but after completion of the Inquiry the case was finally closed F
on 25.07.2000.
(c) After five years of the closing of the above case, a fresh First
Information Report (FIR), being No. 194 dated 29.05.2005 was got
registered by Shri Shashi Bhushan Sharma (Respondent No. 2 herein)-
brother of the deceased against Manoj Sharma- appellant No. 1 herein,
G
Heera Lal Sharma, Mahaveer Prasad Sharma and Smt. Hem Lata
Sharma-the father, uncle and mother of the appellant No. 1 herein
respectively at P.S. Bhillai Nagar, District Durg under Sections 3048,
498A and Section 34 ofthe1ndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC').
(d} Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the appellants herein filed a
Writ Petition being No. 2890 of2005 before the High Court. The-Di\cis.ion H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A Bench of the High Coll!i, vide order dated 25.07.2005, directed for the
continuance of the investigation of the alleged offence.
(e) On 04.04.2007, the said writ petition was withdrawn with the leave
of the court and the appellants herein filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
being No. 612 of 2007 before the High Cou11 under Section 482 of the
B Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') for quashing of
the FIR. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated
17.10.2011, allowed the proceedings to continue with a direction to the
police to hold fair and proper investigation to ensure logical conclusion
of the same without unnecessary delay.
(f) An application for modification being Criminal Misc. Petition No. 732
c of2011 was filed for modification of the order dated 17.10.2011 in
Criminal M iscellancous Pt:tition 612 of2007 on the ground that during
the pendency oflhe juclgrnrnt m 1:1..: matter, the chargesheet came to be
filed by the police hdore the court which was allowed vide order dated
17. 11.2011.
D (g) rurthcr, the appellants herein filed Criminal Misc. Petition being No.
765of2011 under Section 4 82 read with Section 397 of the Code before
the High Court for quashing of charge sheet and cognizance taken thereof
by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg dated 03.09.2011 and
13.10.2C 11 respectively in Criminal i'rnceeding No. 805 of201 I arising
out of Crime No. 194 of 2005 registered at P.S. Bhilai Nagar, District
E
Durg. Learned single Judge of the I ligh Court,\ ide order dated 27.09.2012
dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein.
(h) Aggrieved by the abovesaid order, the appel 1.111ts have preferred this
appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
F 3. Heard Mr. Sushi! Kumar, learned senior cou11 ...:! for the
appcl Ian ts-accused and Mr. Atul Jha, learned counsel for the respondent-
State.
Rival Submissions:
4. Mr. Sushi I Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellants
G vehemently contended that since the place of incident is I Iaryana, the
FIR and the cognizance of the offence could not have bt.:cn taken at
Durg. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the earlier or the
first information in regard to the commission of a cognizable offenc<.
satisfies the requirement of Section 154 of the Code and there cannot be
H second FIR or fresh investigation ofany subsequent information in respect
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 163
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
of the same cognizable offence. The investigation was carried out at A
Durg in Chhattisgarh and the deceased never resided at the said place
after the marriage thus the court at Durg had no jurisdiction to proceed
with the prosecution. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the
present charge sheet is a sheer abuse of the process and has been tiled
without any basis on an FIR which was lodged after 5 (five) years that
B
too on the basis of anonymous letters.
5. Per contra, learned counsel forthe respondent-State submitted
that no FIR was lodged at Mulana Police Station nor was there any
investigation carried out into any allegation of commission of a cognizable
offence, but upon receipt of information regarding death, the pol ice had
conducted inquiry under Section 174 of the Code and submitted a report
c
to the sub-Divisional Magistrate. He further submitted that it is not a
case where the police registered FIR, carried out investigation and
submittecl a report under Section 173 of the Code rather the case was
closed stating that no offence was found to be committed and accepted
by the court of competent jurisdiction. It is fu1iher submitted that the D
FIR was lodged for the first time in the P.S. Bhilai Nagar and it cannot
be said to be the second FIR of the same incident. The reports of the
Office of the Scene of Crime Unit, Durgand the Director, Medico Legal
Institute, the contents of the FIR, the case diary statements are prima
f(1cie sufficient for initiation ofcriminal proceedings forthe offence under
Sections 3048 and 498A of the !PC. Learned counsel further submitted
E
that as regards the question of territorial jurisdiction is concerned; the
paii ofcause ofaction arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
at Durg. He finally submitted that a full enquiry into the cause of death
of the deceased should be made and the ends of justice would be best
served when the accused would be found guilty for her unnatural death. F
6. We have carefully perused the entire records including
depositions and documents and considered the rival contentions.
Discussion:
7. Nandini (since deceased) was married to appellant No. I herein G
on 27.04.1999 at Durg. On 20.09.1999, she died under suspicious
circumstances at her matrimonial home at Ambala. As per the initial
investigation, the cause of death was hanging. Upon receipt of
information, F.S. Ambala proceeded to hold an inquiry under Section
174 of the Code. During investigation, no offence was found to have
been committed. It may be mentioned here that Shri R. P. Sharma- H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 7 S.C.R.
A father of the deceased and other relatives were also present during the
investigation. A report of the inquiry made under Section 174 of the
Code was forwarded to sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala which was
accepted and the case was finally closed. Simultaneously, an inquiry
was also conducted by the Indian Air Force which resulted in the closure
of the case while holding that no foul play is suspected in the case.
B
8. After about 5 years, on the basis of anonymous letters received
by the brother of the deceased-Respondent No. 2 herein, wherein the
death was described a planned murder, FIR being No. 194 of2005 dated
29.05.2005 was registered against the appellants herein under Sections
304B and 498A of the IPC. The FIR, in substance, recorded that the
c deceased was meted out with cruelty at her matrimonial home on the
behest of appellants for the demand of dowry. On 20.09.1999, the
deceased informed Respondent No. 2 over phone regarding the quarrel
with the appellant No. I herein and she was found dead on the very
same date. During investigation, the police at Durg found that she was
D actually subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand of dowry by
her in-laws. The appellant No. I herein was arrested for the alleged
involvement in the offence. Being aggrieved by the filing of the FIR, the
appellant No. I herein filed a writ petition before the High Court which
got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.04.2007. A fresh petition
under Section 482 of the Code was also filed before the High Court
E wherein learned single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated
17.10.2011 dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein while
directing the police to complete the investigation speedily. Further, a
petition was filed by the appellants herein for quashing of charge sheet
and cognizance taken of the offence dated 03.09.2011 and 13.10.2011
F respectively in Crime No. 194 of2005 registered at P.S. Bhilai Nagar,
District Durg which also got dismissed vide High Court's order dated
27.09.2012.
9. Learned senior counsei for the appellants submitted that the
earlier or the first information in regard to the commission ofa cognizable
G offence satisfies the requirement of Section 154 of the Code and there
cannot be second FIR or fresh investigation of any subsequent information
in respect of the same cognizable offence. Learned senior counsel further
stressed upon that when the police had conducted inquiry on the information
and closed the case there is no point in re-opening the case by filing
FIR that too on the basis of anonymous letters received by the brother
H
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 165
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
of the deceased after a lapse of 5 (five) years. In view of the above A
claim of learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is imperative to
discuss the scope of'Inquiry' under Section 174 of the Code in order to
ascertain as to whether the 'information' received under Section 174 of
the Code satisfies the requirement of Section 154 of the Code.
Scope of 'Inquiry' under Section 174 of the Code: B
I 0. The proceedings under Section 174 have a very limited scope.
The object of the proceedings is merely to ascertain whether a person
has died under suspicious circumstances or an unnatural death and if so
what is the apparent cause of the death. The question regarding the
details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who assaulted him or c
under what circumstances he was assaulted is foreign to the ambit and
scope of the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code. Neither in
practice nor in law was it necessary for the police to mention those
details in the inquest report. h is, therefore, not necessary to enter all
the details of the overt acts in the inquest report. The procedure under
Section 174 is for the purpose of discovering the cause of death, and the D
evidence taken was very short. When the body cannot be found or has
been buried, there can be no investigation under Section 174. This section
is intended to apply to cases in which an inquest is necessary. The
proceedings under this Section should be kept more distinct fror:n the
proceedings taken on the complaint. Whereas the starting point of the E
powers of police was changed from the power of the officer in charge
of a police st.ation to investigate into a cognizable offence without the
order of a Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information regarding
commission of a cognizable offence, whether received orally or in writing,
into writing. As such, the objective of such placement of provisions was
clear which was to ensure that the recording of the first information F
should be the starting point of any investigation by the police. The purpose
of registering FIR is to set the machinery of criminal investigation into
inotion, which culminates with filing of the police report and only after
registration of FIR, beginning of investigation in a case, collection of
evidence during investigation and formation of the final opinion is the
G
sequence which results in filing of a report under Section 173 of the
Code. In George and Otlters vs. State of Kera/a and Anotlter ( 1998)
4 sec 605, it has been held that the investigating officer is not obliged to
investigate, at the stage of inquest, or to ascertain as to who were the
assailants. A similar view has been taken in Sureslt Rai and Otlters vs.
State of Billar (2000) 4 SCC 84. H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 7 S.C.R.
A II. In this view of the matter, Sections 174 and 175 of the Code
afford a complete Code in itself for the purpose of"Inquiries" in cases
of accidental or suspicious deaths and are entirely distinct from the
"investigation" under Section 157 of the Code wherein if an officer in-
charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an
offence which he is empowered to investigate, he shall proceed in person
B
to the spot to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case. In the
case on hand, an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code was convened
initially in order to ascertain whether the death is natural or unnatural.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants claims that the earlier
information regarding unnatural death amounted to FIR under Section
c 154 of the Code which was investigated by the police and thereafter the
case was closed. On a careful scrutiny of materials on record, the
inquiry which was conducted for the purpose of ascertaining whether
the death is natural or unnatural cannot be categorized under information
relating to the commission of a cognizable offence within the meaning
and import of Section 154 of the Code. On information received by P.S.
D
Mulana, the police made an inquiry as contemplated under Section 174
of the Code. After holding an inquiry, the police submitted its report
before the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambala stating therein that it was
a case of hanging and no cognizable offence is found to have been
committed. In the report, it was also mentioned that the father of the
E deceased-R.P. Sharma (PW-I) does not want to take any further action
in the matter. In view of the above discussion, it clearly goes to show
that what was undertaken by the police was an inquiry under Section
174 of the Code which was limited to the extent of natural or unnatural
death and the case was closed. Whereas, the condition precedent for
recording ofFIR is that there must be an infonnation and that information
F
must disclose a cognizable offence and in the case on hand, it leaves no
matter of doubt that the intimation was an information of the nature
contemplated under Section 174 of the Code and it could not be
categorized as information disclosing a cognizable offence. Also, there
is no material to show that the police after conducting investigation
G submitted a report under Section 173 of the Code as contemplated, before
the competent authority, which accepted the said report and closed the
case.
12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the investigation
on an inquiry under Section 174 of the Code is distinct from the
H investigation as contemplated under Section 154 of the Code relating to
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. SlATE OF 167
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
commission of a cognizable offence and in the case on hand there was A
no FIR registered with the P.S. Mulana neither any investigation nor any
report under Section 173 of the Code was submitted. Therefore,
challenge to impugned FIR under Crime No. 194 of2005 registered by
P.S. Bhilai Nagar could not be ass·ailed on the ground that it was second
FIR in the garb of which investigation or fresh investigation of the same
8
incident was initiated.
Territorial Jurisdiction:
13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the P.S. Bhilai Nagar, Durg had no territorial jurisdiction
to investigate the matter alleging commission of offence under Sections c
3048 and 498A of the !PC because none of the part of the alleged
offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of P.S. Bhilai
Nagar, Durg. It is true that territorial jurisdiction also is prescribed under
sub-section ( 1) of Section 156 to the extent that the officer can investigate
any cognizable case which a co mt havingjurisdiction over the local area
within the limits of such police station would have power to enquire into D
or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. However, sub-section (2)
makes the position clear by providing that no proceeding of a police
officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the
ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered to
investigate. After investigation is completed, the result of such E
investigation is required to be submitted as provided under Sections 168,
169 and 170. Section 170 specifically provides that if, upon an
investigation, it appears to the officer in charge bf the police station that
there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify
the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall forward
the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance F
of the offence upon a police ieport and to try the accused or commit for
trial. Further, if the investigating officer arrives at the conclusion that the
crime was not committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police
station, then FIR can be forwarded to the police station havingjurisdiction
over the area in which the crime is committed. But this would not mean G
that in a case which requires investigation, the police officer can refuse
to record the FIR and/or investigate it. Chapter Xlll of the Code provides
for "jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials". It is to be
stated that under the said Chapter there are various provisions which
empower the court for inquiry or trial of a criminal case and that there is
H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 7 S.C.R.
A no absolute prohibition that the offence committed beyond the local
territorial jurisdiction cannot be investigated, inquired or tried. This would
be clear by referring to Sections 177 to 188. For our purpose, it would
suffice to refer only to Sections 177 and 178 which are as under:
"177. Ordinary place of enquiry and trial.-Every offence
B shall ordinarily be inquired into arid tried by a Court within whose
localjurisdictiQn it was committed.
178. Place of enquiry or trial.-(a) When it is uncertain in
which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and
c partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be
committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be enquired into or tried by a Court havingjurisdiction over
D any of such local· areas."
A reading of the aforesaid sections would make it clear that Section 177
provides for "ordinary" place of enquiry or trial. Section 178, inter alia,
provides for place of enquiry or trial when it is uncertain in which of
several local areas an offence was committed or where' the offence
was committed partly in one local area and partly in another and where
E
it consisted of several acts done in different local areas, it could be
enquired into or tried by a court havingjurisd iction over any of such local
·areas. Hence, at the stage of investigation, it cannot be held that the
SHO does not have territorial jurisdiction to investigate the crime. But
after the investigation is over, ifthe officer arrives at the conclusion that
F the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial
jurisdiction, then he will forward the case to the Magistrate concerned
· empowered to take cognizance of the offence.
· 14. In the instant case, the question of territorial jurisdiction was
just one of the grounds for quashing the proceedings along with the
G other grounds and, therefore, the High Court should have examined
whether the case was fit to be quashed on other grounds ornot. Nandini
Sharma committed suicide in her matrimonial home at Ambala.. The
information with regard to the said incident was forwarded to the Police
Station Mulana; District Ambala. On 22.09.1999, post mortem on the
body was conducted and the case was closed by submitting a final report
H
MANOJ·KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 169
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
before the SDM stating that there was no sign of foul play in the A
occurrence. Since the appellant No. I was a Flying Officer at the
relevant time, a Court oflnquiry (Col) was also convened to investigate
into the alleged role of the ~ppellant No. I herein which was finally
closed on 25.07.2000. None of the family members of the deceased
raised any doubt on the death of Nandini or named anyone in the
B
appellant's family especially when the father, brother and other relatives
of the deceased were present at Ambala during the period when the
investigation was carried on. On a correct appreciation of record, we
do not find even a whisper about the cruelty meted out to her soon
before her death. In fact, it is on record that the appellant No. I visited
Durg several times after the death ofNandini and stayed with in-laws. c
15. The territorial jurisdiction of a court with regard to a criminal
offence would be decided on the basis of the place of occurrence of the
incident. In the instant case, the suicide was committed atAmbala. The
Ambala police closed the case after fulfilling the requirements of Section
174 of the Code holding that there was no foul play in the incident and D
also there was no requirement oflodging FIR under Section 154 as none
of the family members of the deceased raised any suspicion over the
death even though the death was committed within seven-years of
marriage. Also, there is no evidence of it being a continuing offence.
Hence, the offence alleged cannot be said to have been committed wholly
or partly within the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court at Durg. E
Primajacie, none of the ingredients constituting the offence can be said
to have occu~red within the local jurisdiction ofthat Court.
16. In the case on hand, as per the materials on record, in Crime
No. 194 of2005, charge sheet has been filed and the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Durg has taken cognizance of the proceedings. In the present F
fact situation, we are of the considered opinion that the Court at Durg
has no territorial jurisdiction to try the case and the proceedings are
liable to be quashed on the ground oflack of territorial jurisdiction since
the entire cause ofaction for the alleged offence had purportedly arisen
in the city of Ambala. G
Delay in lodging of FIR
17. In the case on hand, after S (five) years of the closing of the
above case under Section 174 of the-Code, a fresh FIR being ~o. 194 of
2005 was registered on the basis of anonymous letters received by
Respondent No. 2 herein - brother of the deceased at Durg under H
170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 6] 7 S.C.R.
A Sections 304B, 498A and Section 34 of the Code stating that the death
ofNandini Sharma was a pre-planned murder. Even after the death of
Nandini, the relations between the appellant No. I herein and his in-laws
were cordial as can easily be seen from the evidence on record. Appellant
No. I herein met his in-laws several times at Durg. Neither at the time
of the death of Nandini nor before receiving of anonymous letters by
B
Respondent No. 2 herein, was there any iota of doubt in the minds of the
respondents with regard to the appellants herein. Even the father of
the deceased never raised suspicion on the conduct of his son-in-law
and only after receiving of the above said letters by Respondent No. 2,
after a lapse of 5 (five) years, he gave his deposition that his daughter
c was subjected to cruelty for the demand of dowry on the hands of the
appellants herein.
18. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which
is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only
gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
D introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. In our opinion,
such extraordinary delay in lodging the FIR raises grave doubt about tire·
truthfulness of allegations made by Respondent No. 2 herein against the
appellants, which are, in any case, general in nature. We have no doubt
that by making such reckless and vague allegations, Respondent No. 2
herein has tried to rope the appellants in criminal proceedings. We are of
E the confirmed opinion that continuation ofthe criminal procel:dings against
the appellants pursuant to this FIR is an abuse of the process of law.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, the FIR deserves to be quashed. In
this context, it is apt to quote the following decision of this Court in Jai
Prakasli Sing It vs. State of Bilwr & Anr. (2012) 4 SCC 379 wherein it
F was held as under:-
"12. The FIR in a criminal case.is a vital and valuable piece of
evidence though may not be substantive piece of evidence. The
object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR in respect of
the commission of an offence is to obtain early information
G regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed,
the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as
well as the names of the eye-witnesses present at th~ scene of
occurrence. If there is a delay in lodging the FIR, it loses the
advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of
coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a
H
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 171
CHHATTISGARI-1 & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
result oflarge number of consultations/deliberations. Undoubtedly, A
the promptness in lodging the FIR is an assurance regarding truth
of the informant's version. A promptly lodged FIR reflects the
firsthand account of what has actually happened, and who was
responsible for the offence in question."
19. Whether an offence has been disclosed or not, must necessarily B
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. If on consideration
of the relevant materials, the Court is satisfied that an offence is disclosed,
it will normally not interfere with the investigation into the offence and
will generally allow the investigation into the offence to be completed in
order to collect materials for proving the offence.
c
20. In the above backdrop, it is also imperative to discuss the
scope of inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code. The appellants before us filed a petition under Section 482 of the
Code for quashing of the FIR on the ground that the FIR was filed after
a delay of 5 (five) years and is barred by territorial jurisdiction. The
High Court, on the other hand, after taking note of the fact that the D
investigation is in the final stage in the matter and a charge sheet is
ready to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, ordered for
its continuance without taking into consideration that it is barred by law.
The court at Durg did not take notice of the fact that there is a legal bar
engrafted in the matter for its continuance and the proceedings have E
been maliciously instituted after a delay of five years with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the appellants. This point has been
more clarified in St"te of H"ry(llUI (Ind Others vs. Blwj"n L"/ (llU/
Others (1992) Supp (I) SCC 335, wherein this Court also stated that
though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined,
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae or to F
give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherei11 power under
Section 482 of the Code for quashing of the FIR should be exercised,
there are circumstances where the Court may be justified in exercising
such jurisdiction. These are, where the FIR does not primafacie constitute
any offence, does not disclose a cognizable offence justifying investigation· G
by the police; where the allegations are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused; where there is an expressed legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code; and where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20!6]7 S.C.R.
A attended with ma/a fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. Despite
stating these grounds, the Court unambiguously uttered a note of caution
to the effect thatthe power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too, in the
B
rarest of rare cases; the Court also warned th11t the Court would not be
justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that
the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. In para 102 of the
c judgment, it was held as under:-.
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles
of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
D inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code whicn we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the fol lowing categories
of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends ofjustice, though it may not be possible
to lay' down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
E channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid fonnulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.
(I) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
F accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable
offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section
G 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2)ofthe Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
H against the accused.
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 173
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable A
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent B
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
grou11d for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar en grafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance c
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in
the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
tide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an D
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with
a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
21. While discussing the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the
Code, a similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in
Raiiv Tliapar and Others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 E
wherein it was held as under:-
"29. The issue being examined in the instant case is t,he jurisdiction
of the High Court under.Section 482 CrPC, ifit chooses to quash
the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of
issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage . F
·of framing of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would
naturally be available for later stages. as well. The power vested
in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, at the stages referred
to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch
as it would negate the prbsecution's/complainant's case without G
allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination m~st always be rendered with caution, care and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material
produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion
H
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 7 S.C.R.
A that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable
facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace
the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused;
and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and
overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to
B
rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any
evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should
not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted,
being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material
c relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the
accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience
of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under
Section 482 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that
would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends
D
ofjustice.
30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs,
we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity
of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Cou1t under Section 482 CrPC:
E 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling
and impeccable quality?
30.2. Step fll'o: whether the material relied upon by the accused
would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled
F against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and
overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the
material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss
and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?
30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused
G has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the
material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in
an abuse of process of the court, and wou Id not serve the ends of
justice?
H
MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 175
CHHATTISGARH & ANR. [R. K. AGRAWAL, J.]
30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial A
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section
482 CrPC. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising
B
therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not
conc:ude in the conviction of the accused."
Conclusion:
22. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered
. opinion that the allegations made in the FIR are inherently improbable c
and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case against the appellants
herein. Further, to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced
on record is based on sound, justifiable and reasonable facts. In the
case on hand, malicious prosecution was instituted by the brother of the D
deceased after a period of five years that too on the basis of anonymous
letters. There was no accusation against the appellants before filing of
the FIR. The allegations are vague and do not warrant continuation of
criminal proceedings against the appellants. Also, the comi at Durg has
no territorial jurisdiction because cause of action, if any, has arisen in E
Ambala. The criminal proceeding is grossly delayed and a result of
belated afterthought. The High Court failed to apply the test whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made primafacie, establish the offence.
It is also for the cou1i to take into consideration any special features
which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and
in the interest ofjustice to permit the prosecution to continue. The High F
Court did not apply its mind judiciously and on an incorrect appreciation
ofrecord, ordered for continuance of the investigation on a petition under
Section 482 of the Code. This power must be exercised judiciously and
not capriciously or arbitrarily, as any improper or capricious exercise of
such power may lead to undesirable results. G
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, FIR No.194 dated
29.05.2005 is hereby quashed and the criminal proceeding against the
appellants is dropped for want of prosecution. Consequently, the appeal
is allowed.
Devika Gujral Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 174 inquiry"Sign in to search