NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR.versusBHARTI

                      [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1074


A                  NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR.                            I.:
                                v.
                             BHARTI
                (Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003)
                        OCTOBER 7, 2009
B
         [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]

        Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Complaint
                                                                    +
  filed against husband and in-laws under ss. 406, 498A read
c with s. 114 /PC - Cognizance of offence - Petition for quashing
  order of cognizance - Husband expired in 2006 - Petition for
  quashing dismissed - Appeal by parents-in-law - Held:
  Complaint was vague and general and silent about the
  precise acts of the appellants - Particulars of offence
D committed by appellants and role played by them in
                                                                    ~
  committing that offence not mentioned in the complaint -


                                                                          -
  A/legations primarily made against husband who has already
  expired - Under such circumstances, allowing prosecution to
  continue against the aged parents would be abuse of process
E of law - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.406, 498A read with s. 114.
      Respondent filed complaint against her husband,
  parents-in-law and sister-in-law under s.406, s.498A read
  with s.114 IPC. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.        +
  The order of cognizance was challenged by the accused
F persons. Accused-husband expired in 2006. However,
  High Court did not quash the complaint holding that the
  complaint showed the material sufficient to proceed
  against the accused persons. Hence the present appeal.                  .
G       Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                    y
         HELD: 1. From a bare reading of the complaint, it is
    apparent that the problem started barely after six months
    of the marriage. The complaint stated that all the accused
H                              1074
           NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR. v. BHARTI                 1075


    persons came to complainant's parents house and                A
    asked her parents to give the complainant more gold and
    other articles as dowry otherwise they would leave the
    complainant there and her husband would be married
    second time. The allegation against accused husband in
    the complaint was that the accused husband asked the           8
    complainant to hand over the ornaments and clothes to
    his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching Delhi
~   when the ornament were asked back by the complainant,
    they were not returned back. The perusal of complaint as
    a whole, showed that it was basically against the accused      C
    husband. All the allegations were against husband. There
    was undoubtedly some reference to the parents-in-law-
    appellants, but there were no particulars given as to date
    on which the ornaments were handed over, as to the
    exact number of ornaments or their description and as
    to the date when the ornaments were asked back and             0
    were refused. Even the weight of the ornaments was not
    mentioned in the complaint. Even in complaint where the
    complainant stated that she asked for her clothes and
    ornaments which were given to the accused and they
    refused to give these back, the date was significantly         E
    absent. Even about the clothes, the date on which they
    were handed over to daughter of the appellants and the
    other details were very significantly absent. It was also
    the version of the complainant that she was beaten in
    support of which she filed a certificate from AllMS            F
    hospital. However, in the complaint, it is not seen as to
    on which date she was beaten and by whom. The matter
    against sister-in-law, the fourth original accused was
    already dropped as she was in fact not even the resident
    of the same house. [Para 4] [1078-C-H; 1079-A-C]               G

         2. In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention
    of the sections and the language of those sections is not
    end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the
                                                                   H
    1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A notice of the court is particulars of the offence committed      ~
  by each and every accused and the role played by each
  and every accused in committing of that offence. The
  complaint is sadly vague. It did not show as to which
  accused committed what offence and what is the exact
B role played by these appellants in the commission of
  offence. There could be said something against accused-
  husband, as the allegations were made against him more
  precisely but he is no more and has expired. Under such         -1
  circumstances, it would be an abuse of process of law
c to allow the prosecution to continue against the aged
  parents, on the basis of vague and general complaint
  which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.
  The High Court merely mentioned that the allegation in
  the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in
  possession of the husband and the petitioners. If the
D articles were in the possession of the husband, there was
  no question of the appellants being in possession.
  Insofar as the offence under Section 498A IPC was
  concerned, there is no material or allegation worth the
  name against the appellants. This is apart from the fact
E that despite service of notice, the complainant neither
  appeared before this court nor engaged any counsel to
  represent her. Under the circumstances, the judgment of
  the High Court is set aside. [Paras 5, 6 and 7] [1079-0-H;       +
  1080-A-D]
F
       CRIMINAL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
  No. 949 of 2003.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 6.9.2002 of the High
  Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No.
G 7630-M of 1994.

        M.N. Krishnamani, Rachna Gupta for the Appellants.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
                         NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR. v. BHARTI                     1077

          :J
                      V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. This appeal is against the                A
                 judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby the
                 petition for quashing the criminal proceedings against the
                 appellants pending before the trial court has been dismissed.

                      2. The factual scenario is that the appellant Neelu Chopra      B
                 and Krishan Sarup Chopra are husband and wife and the
                 respondent Bharti is their daughter-in-law. Bharti was married

-          ~
                 in the year 1984 to one Rajesh, the son of present appellants.
                 However, as per the version of the respondent the married life
                 was not smooth on account of unreasonable demand of dowry
                                                                                      c
                 and the misbehaviour on the part of husband Rajesh and his
                 parents, the appellants herein. Ultimately, on 24.12.1993 a
                 complaint came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate 1st
                 Class, Gidderbaha. The complaint was accepted in the sense
          )..-
                 that the leC!rned Judicial Magistrate by his order dated
                 25.1.1994 took the cognizance of the offences under Sections         D
                 406, 498A read with 114 IPC. This order of cognizance was
                 challenged by the accused persons. Rajesh is reported to have
                 expired on 6.1.2006. The High Court, however, did not agree
                 to quash the complaint and took a view that the complaint did
                 show the material sufficient to proceed against the appellants.      E
                 The High court, however, expressed that it would be open to
                 the Magistrate to exempt the personal presence of the
      t
                 appellants. 3.

                      3. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel                 F
                 appearing for the appellants painstakingly took us though the
                 original complaint as also the allied facts relevant for the
                 determination of the present controversy. It was pointed out by
•·.              the learned senior counsel that the marriage had taken place
                 way back in the year 1984 while the complaint was filed on
                                                                                      G
                 24.12.1993 i.e. after about nine years of the marriage. It was
                 further pointed out that two daughters were born to the
                 complainant and presently the complainant along with his
                 daughter is residing in the same house but on the different floor.
                 Learned senior counsel points out that those daughters are now
                                                                                      H
    1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

                                                                        ~
A   22 and 19 years of age. He further points out that presently the
    age of the first appellant is 76 years while her husband is· of
    80 years. Learned senior counsel, however, besides these
  facts, laid great stress on the fact that the complaint is
  absolutely vague and silent as regards the allegation against
B the present appellants.
         4. We have seen the complaint very carefully. From a bare
    reading of the complaint it is apparent that the problem started    ~

    barely after six months of the marriage. In paragraph 3 of the
    complaint, it is stated that all the accused came to
c   complainant's parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her
    parents to give the complainant more gold and other articles
    as dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there and
    Rajesh would be married second time. In paragraph 4, the
    complaint is against Rajesh in the sense that the accused
D   Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over the ornaments and         --i

    clothes to his parents lest they are lost in the way. On reaching
    to Delhi when the ornament were asked back by the
    complainant, they were not returned back. When we see the
                                                                               ....
    complaint as a whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh.
E   All the allegations are against Rajesh. There is undoubtedly
    some reference to the present appellants, but what strikes us
    is that there are no particulars given as to date on which the
    ornaments were handed over, as to the exact number of                 1-
    ornaments or their description and as to the date when the
F   ornaments were asked back and were refused. Even the weight
    of the ornaments is not mentioned in the complaint and it is a
    general and vague complaint that the ornaments were
    sometime given in the custody of the appellants and they were
    not returned. What strikes us more is that even in paragraph
                                                                                 ..
                                                                                ~·



G   10 of the complaint where the complainant says that she asked
    for her clothes and ornaments which were given to the accused        ~

    and they refused to give these back, the date is significantly
    absent. It seems from the order taking cognizance that the
    learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version of the
H   complainant is supported by Bhagwati and Dharampal to the
              NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR. v. BHARTI                      1079
                     [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]

      fact that the ornaments were entrusted to Krishan Saroop and         A
      Rajesh while clothes were entrusted to Rakhi and they refused
      to hand over the same. Even their statements could not be
      better than the vague complaint. Even about the clothes, the
      date on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens
      to be the daughter of the present appellants and the other           B
      details are very significantly absent. It was also the version of
      the complainant that she was beaten in support of which she
      has filed a certificate from AllMS hospital, New Delhi. However,
      in the complaint, it is not seen as to on which date she was
      beaten and by whom. It is significant to note that the matter        c
      against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already been
      dropped as she was in fact not even the resident of the same
      house.

           5. In order to lodge a proper compliant, mere mention of
>--   the sections and the language of those sections is not be all        D
      and end of the matter. What is required to be brought to the
      notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed
      by each and every accused and the role played by each and
      every accused in committing of that offence. When we see the
      complaint, the complaint is sadly vague. It does not show as to      E
      which accused has committed what offence and what is the
      exact role played by these appeliants in the commission of
+     offence. There could be said something against Rajesh, as the
      allegations are made against him more precisely but he is no
      more and has already expired. Under such circumstances, it           F
      would be an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution
      to continue against the aged ·parents of Rajesh, the present
      appellants herein on the basis of vague and general complaint
      which is silent about the precise acts of the appellants.
                                                                           G
           6. The High Court has merely mentioned that the allegation
~
      in the complaint are of retaining jewellery articles in possession
      of the husband and the petitioners. Now if the articles were in
      the possession of the husband, there is no question of the
      present appellants being in possession of the jewellery. This
                                                                           H
    1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A is apart from the fact that it has already been expressed by us
  that there is no mention of the date on which the said
  ornaments, if any, were entrusted to the appellants or even the
  date when they were demanded back and were refused to be
  given back by the appellants or any one of them. Insofar as the
B offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we do not find
  any material or allegation worth. the name against the present
  appellants. All the allegations appear to be against the Rajesh.

        7. This i.s apart from the fact that despite service of notice,
C the complainant neither appeared before this court nor engaged
  any counsel to represent her. Under the circumstances we are
  of ttle opinion that the judgment of the High Court deserves to
  be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the
  learned Magistrate taking cognizance is quashed. The
  complaint is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
D
        8. The appeal is· allowed accordingly.
    D.G.                                            Appeal allowed.       ..