1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1457   OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1253/2007]

  BOPPANA SURYA PRAKASA RAO ... APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

  BOLIA SUBRAHMANYAM SRINIVAS AND ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the first informant who lodged the first information  

report  before  the  Sub  Inspector  of  Police,  P.S.  Bhimavaram on  26.3.2006  as  

against the  respondents herein.  The said first information report is based on  

three  suicidal  notes  written  by  Sujatha  –  the  deceased;  one  to  the  police  

department and public,  second to the her near relatives and third to accused  

No.1 who was her would be husband.   

3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we would only take note of  

certain basic facts. They are as under:       

4. The  deceased  was  a  student  of  M.B.A..  She  had  done  her  post-

graduation.  Accused No.1 at the relevant time was not employed. The families of

2

the  deceased  and  accused  No.1  negotiated  for  marriage  and  engagement  

ceremony was held on 18.8.2006. A sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- was paid by way of  

dowry. Some land was also registered by the appellant in favour of the deceased  

as demanded by the respondents herein. After the betrothal ceremony was over,  

the accused No.1 obtained an employment in a factory. The marriage was to take  

place  on  3.2.2006.  Allegedly,  the  demand  for  dowry  was  increased.  It  also  

appears that the deceased and accused No.1 were in constant touch with each  

other. In fact, they had been going to places.   

5. For certain reason with which we are not concerned at this stage, the  

engagement was broken. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- was returned and the rest of the  

dowry amount was promised to be returned by the end of March, 2006.  The  

deceased  committed  suicide  by  jumping  from  a  running  train  on  26/3/2006.  

Relying  on or  on the basis  of  the  suicide  note,  a  first  information report,  as  

noticed hereinbefore, was lodged on 26.3.2006.   

6. There  are  six   respondents  in  this  appeal  but  notice  was  issued  to  

respondent Nos. 4 & 5 only. Respondent No.4 Nekkanti Ravindra Kumar is a  

teacher in a village Chinamallam in the West Godavari District.   Respondent  

No.5 Chinta Suribabu is a Sub Inspector of Police of Annavaram Police Station,  

situate in East Godavari District. The first information report was lodged under  

Section 306 of the I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.           

7. All the accused filed an application before the High Court for quashing

3

of  the  said  first  information  report  on  or  about  8.6.2006.  By  reason  of  the  

impugned judgment the said application has been allowed so far as respondent  

Nos. 4 & 5 who were arrayed as accused Nos.4 & 5 in the said first information  

report, are concerned.  

8. The impugned order is not a speaking one. It is a 3-paragraph order  

which we may notice hereat:  

“This Criminal Petition is field by A-1 to A-5 in Cr. No.  22  of  2006  on  the  file  of  Kaikalur  (R)  P.S.  to  quash  the  proceedings against  them for the offences under Section 306 of  I.P.C.  and Sections  3  and 4  of  the  Dowry Prohibition  Act  (for  short 'the Act').

From the reading of the complaint, it is made out that A- 1 alleged to be speaking bad about the deceased and A-1 to A-3  alleged to have demanded more dowry, if they want the alliance to  continue.  Otherwise, they are not willing to marry the deceased  girl. A-4 and A-5, though present at the time of transaction, did  not play any role, therefore, is no prima facie case against A-4 and  A-5 and the prosecution is liable to be quashed against them for  the said offences.

Accordingly,  the  Criminal  Petition  is  allowed  in  part.  The prosecution against A-4 and A-5 for the offence under Section  306 and Sections 3 and 4 and of the Act is quashed. However, the  prosecution against A-1 to A-3 shall continue.”   

9. Submission of Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on  

behalf  of  the appellant  is  that  from a perusal  of  the first  information report  

lodged before the officer incharge of the Bhimavaram Police Station  as well as  

the three suicide notes which were annexed thereto, it would appear that not only  

the respondents have been named therein, specific roles have been attributed to  

them and in that view of the matter, the High Court committed a serious error in  

holding that they were only present at the time of transaction and played no role.

4

The first information report as also the suicide notes read in their entirety, Mr.  

Singh would contend, would leave no room for any doubt that the respondents  

herein had not only played active role in the matter of demand of dowry, they  

also played very crucial role in the matter of breaking the proposal for marriage,  

which  ultimately  led  to  the  commission  of  suicide  by  the  deceased.  It  was  

furthermore urged by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that it was not  

a fit  case where the High Court  should have quashed the proceedings at the  

initial stage.  Strong reliance has been placed by him on State of Orissa and Anr.  

Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, 2005 (13) SCC 540.  

10. Mr.  A.T.M.  Rangaramanujam,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that:

(1) The reference to the respondents herein in the suicidal notes by the  

deceased is based on hearsay and thus no reliance could be placed thereupon;

(2) Respondents being residents of different villages, it  is improbable  

that they would have played any role either in the matter of demand for dowry  

or breaking of engagement of the deceased with the first respondent resulting in  

the commission of suicide by the deceased. In any event, a charge-sheet having  

been filed only against accused Nos.1, 2 & 3, the remedy of the appellant, if any,  

is to file a protest petition.       

11. A bare perusal of the suicide notes written by Sujatha (deceased) shows  

that they are credible. We, however, do not propose to deal with the statement

5

made therein in details as any observation made by us thereupon may prejudice  

the parties in one way or the other.  We, however, must place on record that both  

the respondents Nos. 4 & 5 herein have specifically been named in the suicide  

notes.  Specific roles have been attributed to them.  The roles attributed to them  

not  only  relate  to  allegations  of  demand  of  dowry  but  also  breakage  of  

engagement.  The statement made by the deceased with regard to Respondent  

No.4 is hearsay but then certainly she was truthful enough to tell: “I don't know  

how far it  is  true.  Probably,  the proposal  was mooted for my marriage with  

second son-in-law. My family rejected that proposal for his drinking habits, for  

that  he  bore  a  grudge.”   Therefore,  it  was  a  matter  of  investigation.  The  

circumstances narrated by the deceased in her suicide notes addressed to the  

police  department and public  clearly  lead to  a  motive  on his  part  in  respect  

thereof.  We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the learned Judge of the  

High Court was entirely wrong in holding that no allegations have been made  

against the respondents in regard to any role played by the accused.  A prima  

facie case for investigation, in our opinion, had been made out and thus it was  

not a fit case where the first information report should have been quashed.   

12. In State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sahoo, (supra) this Court  

held as under:

“As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under  Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are very wide and the very plenitude of  the power requires great caution in its exercise.  Court must be  careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on  sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to  stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest

6

court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie  decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy,  more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced  before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal,  are  of  magnitude  and cannot  be  seen in  their  true  perspective  without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can  be  laid  down in  regard to  cases  in  which the  High  Court  will  exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding  at any stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary, [1992] 4 SCC  305, and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar, AIR (1964) SC  1). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case  of  the  complainant  in  the  light  of  all  probabilities  in  order  to  determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such  premises  arrive  at  a  conclusion that  the  proceedings  are  to be  quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it  and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. When  an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is  registered,  then  the  mala  fides  of  the  informant  would  be  of  secondary  importance.  It  is  the  material  collected  during  the  investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of  the  accused  person.  The  allegations  of  mala  fides  against  the  informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the  basis  for  quashing  the  proceedings.  (See:  Dhanalakshmi  v.  R.  Prasanna Kumar, [1990] Supp SCC 686, State of Bihar v. P. P.  Sharma, AIR  (1996) SC 309, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal  Singh Gill, [1995] 6 SCC 194, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, AIR  (1999) SC 1044, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, [1996] 7 SCC 705,  Rashmi  Kumar  v.  Mahesh  Kumar  Bhada,  [1997]  2  SCC  397,  Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR (1996) SC  2983  and  Rajesh  Bajaj  v.  State  NCT  of  Delhil,  [1999]  3  SCC  259).”

13. The fact of filing of the charge sheet only against accused Nos. 1 to 3  

may now be  considered to  which,  as  noticed hereinbefore,  our  attention was  

drawn by Shri Rangaramanujan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of  

the respondents.   The High Court by an interim order dated 26th June,  2006,  

stayed the investigation.  The impugned order was passed on 2nd August, 2006.  

Charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 to 3 has been filed on 1st September, 2006.   

14. We  have  noticed  hereinbefore  that  the  first  information  report  was

7

lodged on 26th March, 2006.  It is possible that the investigating officer could not  

file the charge sheet against the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 herein not only because  

the investigation was stayed, but also for the reason that before the charge sheet  

could be filed, the High Court quashed the proceedings as against  them. We,  

therefore, are of the opinion that this aspect of the matter should be considered  

by the learned Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of the offence.

15. It is now a well settled principle of law that where a final form is filed,  

the complainant must be given notice thereof in writing. Even at that stage the  

learned Magistrate may take recourse to one of the three notes highlighted by  

this Court in  Abhinandan Jha and Ors. vs.  Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117,  

namely :  

(i)  The  investigating  officer  may  be  asked  to  undertake  further  

investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C.

(ii)  Take cognizance against  the accused concerned on the basis  of  a  

protest petition filed by the complainant.

(iii)  Take  cognizance  of  the  offence  against  the  accused  persons  

although they have not been challaned, relying on or on the basis of the materials  

collected during the investigation.

16. Therefore,  while  taking  notice  of  the  subsequent  events,  which have  

been brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel, we are of the opinion  

that recourse to one of the modes above-mentioned may be taken by the learned  

Magistrate as also by the parties as they think fit and proper.  However, there

8

cannot be any doubt whatsoever that for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore the  

impugned judgment cannot be sustained.  The same is set aside accordingly and  

the appeal is allowed with the aforementioned observations.   

17. We, however, must clarify that we have not entered into the merits of  

the  matter  nor  any  remedies  available  to  the  parties  are  foreclosed.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA)

..........................J   (DEEPAK VERMA)    NEW DELHI, AUGUST 6, 2009.