PR ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATIONS: ENGLISH SHORTHAND DICTATION-337

We have heard the parties as well as perused the charge-sheet and the other materials on record. The charge-sheet sets out the contents of the FIR and refers to the materials that were collected in course of investigation. The Investigating Officer obtained the Call Details Record and Customer Acquisition Form of the cell phones of the second respondent and the petitioner and had also attempted to obtain certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act by approaching the relevant service providers but failed in his attempt. He was informed that the conversations were¹⁰⁰ quite old, hence, the requisite certificate could not be issued. The charge-sheet also recorded that the principal accused and¹²⁰ the co-accused were yet to be arrested and after their arrest, separate supplementary challan would be prepared and presented before the court; nevertheless, sufficient evidence on the file to prepare challan against the petitioner was available.

In the course of hearing of this appeal, the petitioner sought for and was granted permission to file additional documents. Soon thereafter, the first respondent filed a reply affidavit dated 24th April, 2023. The application for additional documents contains several²⁰⁰ documents. The first purports to be the translated copy of an agreement dated 23rd June, 2020 entered into by and between the principal accused and the second respondent in the presence of two witnesses, whereby the principal²⁴⁰ accused undertook responsibility of the entire amount of Rs. 45 lakh received by her from the second respondent and also promised to refund to the second respondent the entire amount if, for any reason, the work to set up the proposed company did not materialize. The second document is purportedly a statement of 23rd June, 2020³⁰⁰ made by the principal accused undertaking to pay Rs. 47 lakh, which she had received for business purpose from the second respondent, to the latter within a year from date. The third document also purports to be the true translation of a statement of the principal accused admitting that there were discussions with the second respondent to promote and set³⁶⁰ up an ayurvedic factory for which the parties met several times and that the principal accused received such amount of money as indicated therein. All these documents which the petitioner seeks to rely on, if genuine, could be helpful for⁴⁰⁰ her defence at the trial but the same are not material at the stage of deciding whether quashing as prayed by her before the High Court was warranted or not. We, therefore, see no reason to place any reliance on these three documents. The fourth document which has been brought on record in support of the petitioner's claim for quashing of the proceedings against her is the statement of the second respondent under section 161 of the Code⁴⁸⁰ of Criminal Procedure. Therein, inter alia, it was stated by the second respondent that Rs. 9.50 lakh⁵⁰⁰ was paid in cash by her to the principal accused at a particular house where the principal accused, the petitioner, and their mother were present and that on receipt of such sum of money in cash, they counted the money which was ultimately kept with the principal accused.

This, the second respondent said, happened in the presence of her sister-in-law. It was also said by the second respondent in such statement that the principal accused, her husband, the petitioner and the other accused together have cheated her in a sum of Rs. 45 lakh in the manner described therein.⁶⁰⁰ The charge-sheet contains a list of 27 witnesses who are proposed to be examined by the prosecution in support of the charges framed against several accused including the petitioner. Apart from the second respondent and others, this particular list includes the sister-in- law of the second respondent, who is said to have been present at House No. 620 when allegedly the money changed hands.

This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered⁷⁰⁰ opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous that allowing the⁷²⁰ trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be; conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without⁸⁰⁰ a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the⁸⁴⁰ process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under section 397 or section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court⁹⁰⁰ many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarized by this Court succinctly.

Applying the broad principles as enunciated by this Court, we hold that it is not one⁹⁶⁰ of those rare cases where the uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on record notwithstanding, it can be successfully contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is¹⁰⁰⁰ trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence for which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, the principal accused, to cheat and defraud the second¹⁰⁸⁰ respondent, persuade us to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial.

For the reasons aforesaid, we uphold the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court may proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment and order which is for the purpose of a decision on the appeal. Before parting, we consider it necessary to advert to one aspect which, though not referred to by the parties to us, has been noticed from the reply¹²⁰⁰ affidavit of the first respondent.