SARANYAversusBHARATHI AND ANOTHER

                         [2021] 8 S.C.R. 513                               513


                             SARANYA                                       A
                                   v.
                   BHARATHI AND ANOTHER
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 873 of 2021)
                         AUGUST 24, 2021.                                  B
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
                   M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 482 – Exercise of power
under – Stage of framing of charge – High Court quashed and set
                                                                           C
aside the criminal proceedings qua co-accused-respondent no. 1
for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 IPC – Correctness of – Held:
High Court entered into the appreciation of the evidence and
considered whether on the basis of the evidence, the accused is likely
to be convicted or not – At this stage, while considering the
application u/s.482 Cr.P.C., this is not at all permissible – High Court   D
was not conducting the trial and/or was not exercising the
jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order of conviction
or acquittal – Furthermore, there was ample material to show at
least a prima facie case against respondent no. 1, the High Court
ought not to have quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 –
                                                                           E
Order passed by the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal
proceedings for the offences u/ss. 420, 302 rw 109 qua respondent
no.1 quashed and set aside.
      s. 482 – Stage of framing of charge while considering the
discharge application – Principles which the High Court to keep in
                                                                           F
mind while exercising jurisdiction u/s. 482 – Stated.
      Allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 There is sufficient material on record raising
the strong suspicion against respondent no.1-A2 also. It has been
found that A2-respondent no.1 who was serving in the Secretariat           G
and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as she
used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she
introduced A1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is
specifically alleged that she said that she could manage to get
the job/employment for the deceased but for that they had to pay.
                                                                           H
                                  513
514            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     It is true that as per the case of the prosecution and even as per
      the statement of the complainant, an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was
      paid to A1. However, during the course of the investigation, an
      amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered from the
      house of respondent no. 1-A2 at the instance of A2 herself. The
      so-called confessional statement of respondent no.1 is
B
      inadmissible in evidence. However, on the basis of such
      statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from
      the house of A2- respondent no.1. The other aspect whether the
      recovered amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand was the same amount
      which was given by the deceased and the complainant to A1 is a
C     matter of evidence to be considered during trial. Even the source
      of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by the
      accused. [Para 8][522-F-H; 523-A-B]
             1.2 During the course of the investigation, the investigating
      officer has collected very important evidence in the form of call
D     details between A1 & A2 which are in the proximity of the time of
      commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts
      and circumstances of the case, when respondent no.1 has been
      chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109
      IPC and when there is ample material to show at least a prima
      facie case against respondent no.1-A2, the High Court has
E     committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire
      criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section
      482 Cr.P.C. Quashing the chargesheet against the accused is not
      justified. The High Court evidently ignored what has emerged
      during the course of investigation. The High Court entered into
F     the appreciation of the evidence and considered whether on the
      basis of the evidence, the accused is likely to be convicted or
      not, which as such is not permissible at all at this stage while
      considering the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High
      Court was not as such conducting the trial and/or was not
      exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against the order
G     of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and
      circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have
      quashed the chargesheet qua respondent no.1- original accused
      no.2. The judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing
      the chargesheet/criminal proceedings for the offences under
H
           SARANYA v. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER                                515


Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC qua respondent no.1-accused no.2            A
is quashed and set aside. [Para 9, 10][523-B-F-G]
      State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak (2019) 13 SCC
      62 : [2019] 2 SCR 1055 – relied on.
      Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460 :
      [2012] 7 SCR 988; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran                  B
      Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198 : [2017] 2 SCR 491; Chitresh
      Kumar Chopra v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
      (2009) 16 SCC 605 : [2009] 13 SCR 230 – referred
      to.
                       Case Law Reference                                 C

[2019] 2 SCR 1055                 relied on               Para 7.1
[2012] 7 SCR 988                  referred to             Para 7.1
[2017] 2 SCR 491                  referred to             Para 7.1
                                                                          D
[2009] 13 SCR 230                 referred to             Para 7.1
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.873 of 2021.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2020 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl. O.P. No.1443 of 2020.                     E
      G. S. Mani, Ms. Khushboo Tomar, G. Ganesh Kumar, R. Sathish,
Advs. for the Appellant.
       S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M.P. Parthiban, A.S. Vairawan,
R. Sudhakaran, Mrs. Shalini Mishra, T Hari Hara Sudhan, Vikas, Dr.
Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Advs.      F
for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
      1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment    G
and order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Criminal OP No. 1443 of 2020, by which the High Court in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has quashed and set aside
the entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein – original
accused no.2 (A2) in P.R.C. No.250 of 2019 on the file of the learned X
                                                                          H
516            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the original complainant –
      wife of the deceased – victim has preferred the present appeal.
             2. That an FIR was lodged against respondent no.1 herein and
      one another on the statement of the appellant herein initially for the
      offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420, r/w 34 IPC. As per the
B     statement and the allegations in the FIR, her husband was serving as
      Assistant Professor a year before. However, thereafter he was
      unemployed; that she had studied up to B.Com and looking after the
      domestic works; that since her husband was unemployed and it was
      difficult to maintain the family expenses, at that time, one Vela alias
      Velayutham was introduced by respondent no.1 herein and told them
C     that the said Vela alias Velayutham is employed at Guindy Employment
      Exchange and that if they give money, he can arrange Government
      employment for them; it was further alleged that believing in his words
      they gave Rs. 4 lakhs to Velayutham about six months before; that on
      23.09.2019 the said Velayutham promised that my husband will get the
D     appointment order today itself and asked us to come to Vyasarpadi; that
      as asked by Velayutham, A1 in the aforesaid FIR, the complainant and
      her husband went to Flat No. 560, 8th Main Road behind Vyasarpadi
      Mullai Nagar Bus Depot at about 9:00 a.m. and met him; that A1 offered
      them ‘Prasadam’ from Shirdi Sai Baba Temple and to talk after our
      taking the Prasadam; that it was a powderlike Vibhuti in Shiva Temples;
E     that since the powder was bitter in taste, she spitted it out, however, her
      husband had consumed it; that her husband fainted and fell down and
      that she was also feeling drowsy; that people nearby called 108
      Ambulance and sent them to Stanley Hospital for treatment; that while
      she was on treatment she came to know that her husband died at the
F     spot of the incident itself; that it was alleged that the powder given by
      Velayutham-A1 was the cause for her husband’s death and her
      drowsiness; that the statement of the complainant was recorded at the
      hospital on 24.09.2019 which at the relevant time was treated as dying
      declaration. The relevant extract of the same is as under:
G           “My name is Saranya I studied B.Com, I got married, my husband
            name is Karthick, I am having two sons, I am a house wife, my
            husband was professor and due to non-payment of salary, he
            started Xerox shop. One Bharathi regularly come to my husband’s
            Xerox shop for Xeroxing. She said that she is working in secretariat,
            she said there is a job in employment office and for arranging the
H
            SARANYA v. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER                                   517
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      same Rs. 6 Lakhs may be given, we decided the job for my husband        A
      as advance during 7 month we paid 5 Lakhs. Daily when enquired
      the phone, the file has been moved, one week ago he said that he
      will give order copy and saibaba prasadam. We went to palani
      with family and returned on Monday at 7.30 hrs, Since, there is
      examination for our sons, I took my sons to school due to delay
                                                                              B
      and spoken with the madam and left my sons in the school, my
      husband saw the missed call from velayutham three times,
      immediately my husband asked me to go home but I wanted to
      accompany him to Mullai Nagar. Previously I went to guindy office,
      velayutham asked as to come in the lane, green colour house is
      my house. He showed an order and given viboothi and kungumam            C
      and we kept it then he opened the box in the vehicle, he has given
      some powder from to me and my husband yellow colour cover in
      spoon, immediately velayutham took the mobile of her husband
      and went in two wheeler for taking Xerox copy of the order copy.
      My husband took the prasadam and felt something irritation and
                                                                              D
      immediately took the water and spit the same, and also he give
      water to his wife with instruction to spit the content in her mouth,
      she also spit the content, my husband suffered fits and he closed
      his eyes, I do not know what had happened to me. When I wake
      up, I was in the hospital. Velayutham has given something to my
      husband and killed him, Bharathi is also the cause. Enquiry             E
      completed at 02.55 afternoon. The Patient conscious and able to
      speak till completing the declaration.”
       2.1 That the dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate in
the presence of Doctor who certified that the patient was conscious and
able to speak; that it was the specific case on behalf of the appellant-      F
complainant that it was the respondent no.1 herein – original accused
no.2 who introduced Vela @ Velayutham – A1 to them and she said that
she is working in the Secretariat and that there is a job in the employment
office and for arranging the same, Rs. 6 lakhs may be given and relying
upon her statement Rs. 5 lakhs was given; that thereafter after the
investigation the investigating officer filed the chargesheet against Vela    G
@ Velayutham – A1 for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420
r/w 34 IPC and against respondent no.1 herein – A2 for the offences
under Sections 420, 302 r/w Section 109 IPC; that the case was pending
for committal before the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
Chennai; that at this stage respondent No.1 herein – A2 approached the        H
518             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     High Court by way of Criminal O.P. No. 1443 of 2020 under Section
      482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing the entire chargesheet as against her,
      pending committal in P.R.C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned X
      Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; that by the impugned
      judgment and order, the High Court in exercise of powers under Section
      482 Cr.P.C. has quashed and set aside the entire chargesheet and the
B
      criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein-A2 in P.R.C. No. 250
      of 2019 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore,
      Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC.
            3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the entire
C     criminal proceedings/chargesheet qua respondent no.1 herein-A2 in
      P.R.C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned X Metropolitan
      Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302
      r/w 109 IPC, the original complainant – victim – wife of the deceased
      has preferred the present appeal.
D            4. Shri G.S. Mani, learned Advocate has appeared for the appellant,
      Shri S. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of
      respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2 and Shri (Dr.) Joseph
      Aristotle S, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent
      – State of Tamil Nadu.
E            4.1 Shri Mani, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
      appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
      of the case, the High Court has committed a grave error in quashing and
      setting aside the entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein
      for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC, in exercise of
F     powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
             4.2 It is submitted that despite the fact that there is ample material
      against respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2, the High Court
      has quashed the entire criminal proceedings/chargesheet by entering
      into the merits of the allegations and appreciating the evidence on record,
G     which at this stage and while considering the application under Section
      482 Cr.P.C. is not permissible.
             4.3 It is submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated
      the fact that as such it was respondent no.1 herein – original accused
      no.2 who assured and/or given promise that she will arrange for the job
      and for that she demanded the money.
H
             SARANYA v. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER                                      519
                       [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      4.4 It is submitted that as such respondent no.1 herein – original          A
accused no.2 introduced Vela @ Velayutham – A1 to the complainant
and her husband and an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs were given to A1. It is
submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the fact that
as such there was confessional statement of respondent no.1 herein –
A2 and on the basis of the said confessional statement, there was a
                                                                                  B
recovery of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of respondent no.1
herein – original accused no.2.
       4.5 It is further submitted that during the course of the investigation,
the investigating officer also collected the evidence in the form of call
details, more particularly the calls between A1 & A2 in the proximity of
the time of commission of offence.                                                C

      4.6 It is submitted that despite the above material collected and
the circumstances, the High Court has erroneously quashed the
chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein –
original accused no.2, in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
                                                                                  D
       4.7 It is submitted that while quashing the chargesheet/entire
criminal proceedings, the High Court has evidently ignored what has
emerged during the course of investigation. The High Court has not at
all applied the relevant test, namely, when there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused or whether there is ground for presuming
that accused has committed the offence. It is submitted that the High             E
Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction to quash the chargesheet/entire
criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Deepak, reported in (2019) 13 SCC
62.                                                                               F
       4.8 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court quashing and setting aside the chargesheet/entire
criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2
for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC.                             G
      5. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State of Tamil Nadu has supported the appellant. Reliance is
placed on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 – State
of Tamil Nadu.
                                                                                  H
520             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A            5.1 It is vehemently submitted that as such during the course of
      the investigation, the investigating officer collected ample material/
      evidence against both the accused and only thereafter chargesheet has
      been filed against A1 for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 302, 420,
      r/w 34 IPC and for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC
      against respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2.
B
             5.2 It is vehemently submitted that during the course of the
      investigation, the investigating officer has collected the call details between
      A1 and A2. It is submitted that perusal of the call details report furnished
      by the service provider and the nodal officer clearly proves that there
      were several calls made by both A1 and A2, vice versa, for example on
C     23.09.2019 (the day when the incident had occurred) at about 09:05:26,
      respondent no.1 herein – A2 made a call to A1 on his mobile No.
      9790846016 from her mobile No. 6382028209 and again A1 had made a
      call to A2 – respondent no.1 herein on the same day at about 09:51:59
      and 09:55:15. It is submitted that it clearly shows that at that time A1
D     was available at the place of the incident and for second call also tower
      location showed the same place. It is submitted that again on the same
      day from mobile No. 9790846016, A1 made a call to A2 on her mobile
      no. 6382028209 at about 6:36 p.m. It is submitted that therefore it is
      clearly established that the said Mrs. Bharathi, respondent no.1 herein –
      A2 aided and instigated the offence committed by A1.
E
             5.3 It is further submitted that there was a recovery of Rs. 1 lakh
      20 thousand from the house of A2 at the instance of A2. It is submitted
      therefore that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction to quash
      the chargesheet/entire criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein,
      while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
F
             6. Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
      of respondent no.1 herein – A2 has submitted that in the facts and
      circumstances of the case and considering the material/evidence on record
      and having found that there is not even a prima facie evidence/material
      against respondent no.1 herein – A2, the High Court has rightly quashed
G     the chargesheet/criminal proceedings qua respondent no.1 herein in
      exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that as
      such and even considering the statement of the original complainant as it
      is and even considering the case of the prosecution as it is, it cannot be
      said that respondent no.1 herein – A2 has committed any offence under
H     Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC. It is submitted that from the statement
            SARANYA v. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER                                   521
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

of the original complainant – appellant, it can be gathered that the          A
allegations against A2 is that she introduced A1 to them; that an amount
of Rs.4/5 lakhs was paid to A1; that the allegations of giving poison and
even purchasing of poison is against A1 only; that there is no evidence
that at the time when A1 gave poison to the deceased, A2 – respondent
no.1 herein was present.
                                                                              B
      6.1 It is further submitted that the so-called confessional statement
of A2 is not admissible in the evidence at all and therefore no reliance
can be placed upon such alleged confessional statement, which has no
evidentiary value.
       6.2 It is further submitted that even the so-called recovery of Rs.    C
1 lakh 20 thousand from the house of A2 cannot bring home the charge
against A2 for the offences for which she has been chargesheeted. It is
submitted that there is no evidence at all that it was the very money
which was given to A1 by the complainant.
     6.3 It is submitted that even the so-called call details between A1      D
& A2 cannot be said to be a sufficient material/evidence against A2.
Merely because A1 & A2 might have talked cannot be held against A2.
       6.4 It is further submitted that even the statement of the
complainant recorded on 24.09.2019 recorded at the hospital cannot be
treated as dying declaration as subsequently she survived. It is submitted    E
that there is improvement in the case and subsequently she had come
out with the case that she paid Rs. 5 lakhs, whereas as per the original
case, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was given.
      6.5 It is submitted that as such there is no material/evidence at all
against A2 for the offence under Section 109 IPC. It is submitted that no     F
case of appellant attracting the offence under Section 109 IPC against
respondent no.1 herein – A2 is made out. It is submitted that there is no
ingredient available as against A2 to attract the offence under Section
109 IPC.
       6.6 It is submitted therefore that in the facts and circumstances
                                                                              G
of the case, the High Court has not committed any error in quashing and
setting aside the chargesheet/criminal proceedings qua accused no.2 in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
      6.7 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeal.
                                                                              H
522             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A            7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      at length.
             Before considering the rival submissions of the parties, few
      decisions of this Court on the principles which the High Court must keep
      in mind while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./at the
B     stage of framing of the charge while considering the discharge application
      are required to be referred to and considered.
              7.1 In the case of Deepak (supra), to which one of us (Dr. Justice
      D.Y. Chandrachud) is the author, after considering the other binding
      decisions of this Court on the point, namely, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh
C     Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran
      Mehdu (2017) 3 SCC 198; and Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
      (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605, it is observed
      and held that at the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to consider
      the material only with a view to find out if there is a ground for
      “presuming” that the accused had committed the offence. It is observed
D     and held that at that stage, the High Court is required to evaluate the
      material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts
      emerging therefrom, take at their face value, disclose the existence of
      all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence or offences. It is further
      observed and held that at this stage the High Court is not required to
E     appreciate the evidence on record and consider the allegations on merits
      and to find out on the basis of the evidence recorded the accused
      chargesheeted or against whom the charge is framed is likely to be
      convicted or not.
             8. In the present case, there is sufficient material on record raising
F     the strong suspicion against respondent no.1 herein – A2 also. It has
      been found that A2- respondent no.1 herein who was serving in the
      Secretariat and was in touch with the deceased and the complainant as
      she used to go to Xerox shop owned by the deceased and she introduced
      A1 to the complainant and the deceased. It is specifically alleged that
      she said that she can manage to get the job/employment for the deceased
G     but for that they have to pay. It is true that as per the case of the
      prosecution and even as per the statement of the complainant, an amount
      of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to A1. However, during the course of the
      investigation, an amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand has been recovered
      from the house of respondent no.1 herein – A2 at the instance of A2
H     herself. It may be truethat the so-called confessional statement of
            SARANYA v. BHARATHI AND ANOTHER                                   523
                      [M. R. SHAH, J.]

respondent no.1 herein is inadmissible in evidence. However, it is to be      A
noted that on the basis of such statement, there was a recovery of Rs. 1
lakh 20 thousand from the house of A2 – respondent no.1 herein. The
other aspect whether the recovered amount of Rs. 1 lakh 20 thousand
was the same amount which was given by the deceased and the
complainant to A1 is a matter of evidence to be considered during trial.
                                                                              B
Even the source of Rs. 1lakh 20 thousand might have to be explained by
the accused.
        9. It also appears that during the course of the investigation, the
investigating officer has collected very important evidence in the form
of call details between A1 &A2 which are in the proximity of the time of
commission of offence and even thereafter. Therefore, in the facts and        C
circumstances of the case, when respondent no.1 herein has been
chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC
and as observed hereinabove when there is ample material to show at
least a prima facie case against respondent no.1 herein – A2, the High
Court has committed a grave error in quashing the chargesheet/entire          D
criminal proceedings qua her in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Quashing the chargesheet against the accused is not justified.
The High Court has evidently ignored what has emerged during the
course of investigation. The High Court has entered into the appreciation
of the evidence and considered whether on the basis of the evidence,
the accused is likely to be convicted or not, which as such is not            E
permissible at all at this stage while considering the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court was not as such conducting the trial
and/or was not exercising the jurisdiction as an appellate court against
the order of conviction or acquittal. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have quashed           F
the chargesheet qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2.
       10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court quashing the chargesheet/criminal proceedings in P.R.
C. No. 250 of 2019 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate,        G
Egmore, Chennai for the offences under Sections 420, 302 r/w 109 IPC
qua respondent no.1 herein – original accused no.2 deserves to be quashed
and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside.Now the learned
Magistrate to proceed further with the case, in accordance with law. It
goes without saying that any observations made by this Court in the
                                                                              H
524                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 8 S.C.R.


A     present order shall be confined to while considering the application under
      Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the trial in the aforesaid case shall proceed
      further on its own merits, in accordance with law on the basis of the
      evidence laid.
              11. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
B

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal allowed.




C




D




E




F




G




H