Court and the material produced by the defence cannot be looked into v. VIJAYA SATARDEKAR criminal case were totally ma/a fide and with ulterior mo & Ors.

Judgment

: Held: Ordinarily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge - However, in very rare and ex- ceptional cases when some defence material when shown to the trial court would convincingly demonstrate that prosecu- tion version was totally absurd or preposterous then the Court can look into it - Per Kabir, J: There is no scope for the ac- cused to produce any evidence in support of his defence at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in s.227 CrP.C. can be taken into consideration by Magistrate at that stage - However, in a proceeding taken there- ~ from under s.482 CrP.C., Court is free to consider material In the in- that may be produced on behalf of the accused - stant case, there is a/legation of fraud - By the Court: Prima r facie case is made out against accused no.

1 - Not a fit case for quashing proceedings - As against the accused no. 2, no F material to show that she was involved in the fraud committed by accused no. 1- Hence prima facie case not made out against her - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 409, 420. D E The complainant-appellant lodged an FIR under ss.409 and 420 IPC, alleging that 'RS', the accused No.1 who was an advocate took signatures of complainant on a Power of Attorney falsely representing that it was meant for enabling him to appear in court case in respect of cer- 271 G H 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A tain properties. The Power of Attorney was used by ac- cused for selling the property to his wife, 'VS' the other accused. The said property belonged to the complainant.

Charge sheet was filed against both the accused. There- after, cognizance was taken of the offence alleged in the B charge sheet and process was issued. ("I Accused-respondents filed revision which was dis- -~

missed. Against that order a writ petition was filed. High Court allowed the writ petition relying upon the evidence of one 'ON' in a Civil Suit. c D In the instant appeal, it was contended for the appel- lant that High Court ought not have relied on the evidence in the Civil Suit for quashing the criminal case; that at the time of framing of the charges only the material produced by the prosecution side could be looked into by the Court and the material produced by the defence cannot be looked into. Respondent contended that the said evidence could have been relied upon on the facts of the instant case for E quashing the criminal proceedings. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: Per Katju, J.: Y.· \,-..-- .. F

#1. The allegations in the FIR if treated to be correct prima facie made out an offence against the respondent, 'RS'. [Para 12] [279,C] I' ' t--

#2. The evidence of 'ON' in the Civil Suit was a very detailed one and some contradictory statements ap- G peared to have been given by him e.g. that the amount was paid by 'RS' as a loan, and this contradicted the ver- sion that the money was paid as a sale consideration. In ~ the judgment of the Civil S~it, it was h~ld that undue influ- ence could not. be ,ruled out. In these circumstances it cannot be said that at this stage the proceedings in the H ILlf _, i )> -._, --..,; ,\_ --! RUKMINI NARVEKAR v. VIJAYA SATARDEKAR & ORS. 273 criminal case were totally ma/a fide and with ulterior mo- A tive. [Para 14] [279,H; 280,A-B]

#3. The pleas which the respondent 'RS' took before the High court could be taken by him at the time of the trial, and it would not be proper to pre-empt the criminal proceeding at this stage. Serious allegations were made against him in the FIR. The r~lation of a lawyer and his client is like a fiduciary relationship, and the lawyer has to act in the interest of his client. However, it was alleged in the FIR that 'RS' deceived the complainant and her hus- band. These are matters which the trial court in the crimi- c nal case should look into. However, this was not a fit case for quashing of the criminal proceedings against 'RS' in exercise of the powers under s.482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution. [Para 15] [280,C-E] B Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370; K. G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Po- lice and Anr. (2002) 8 SCC 87; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992)Supp. 1 SCC 335; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 7 49; Minu Kumari and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 359 and *State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 sec 568 - referred to. D E

#4. It is well settled that a judgment of the Court has not to be treated as a Euclid formula. The observations of F Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's formula nor as provisions of the statute. Thus while it is true that ordi- narily defence material cannot be looked into by the Court while framing of the charge in view of *Debendra Nath Padhi case, there may be some very rare and exceptional cases where some defence material when shown to the ·trial court would convincingly demonstrate that the prosecu- tion version is totally absurd or preposterous, and in such very rare cases the defence material can be looked into by the Court at the time of framing of the charges or tak- G H 274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A B ing cognizance. However, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the evidence in the Civil Suit which was pro~ duced by the defence before the trial court established convincingly that the prosecution case is totally absurd or preposterous. This is a matter which has to be looked into by the trial Court. The judgment of the High Court in respect of 'RS' is set ·aside and the criminal proceedings against him would go on-in the trial Court. As regards the other criminal appeal in which Smt. 'VS', wife of 'RS', was the respondent, there was no material whatsoever either c mentioned in the FIR or produced by the prosecution to show that she was in any way involved in the alleged criminal offence committed by her husband 'RS'. The only allegation against her was that the sale deed was in her favour. This would not prima facie make out any offence. Therefore, the criminal proceeding against 'VS' was rightly D quashed by the High Court. [Paras 17-19, 21-22] (281,C- E; 282,A-B; 282,E-G] Dr. Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhari. Devi Lal University, Sirsa and Anr. JT (2008) 8 SC 621 ; Bharat Petroleum Corpo- ration Ltd. and Anr. v. N. R. Vairamani and Anr. AIR (2004) SC E 4778 - relied on. Or. Monica Kumar and Anr. v. State of U. P and Ors. (2008) 9 Scale 166 - referred to. n f-"' t-.~ [ .. \..---' F Per Kabir, J.: (Concurring with the interpretation of the provisions of s.227 Cr.P.C. and expressing his own views in the matter) f. ~ 'r- HELD: 1. There is no scope for the accused to pro- duce any evidence in his support at the stage of framing of charge and only such material as are indicated in s.227 G Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration by the Magistrate at that stage. However, in a proceeding taken therefrom under s.482 Cr.P.C. the Court is free to consider material ~ that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be main- H tained. This appears to be the intention of the legislature I' -. \ - -) ... i '--; ..\. ,A-,,....! RUKMINI NARVEKAR v. VIJAYA SATARDEKAR & ORS. 275 in wording ss. 227 and 228 the way in which they have A been worded and as explained in *Debendra Nath Padhi's case by the larger Bench to which the very same ques- tion had been referred. [Para 9] [286,E-G]