Supreme Court of India
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS.versusMADAN LAL KAPOOR
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 52
- Decided
- 23 January 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D K JAIN
Holding
The High Court was justified in exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings as the material presented conclusively disproved the allegations and proceeding would constitute an abuse of process.
Summary
The father of the deceased, Madan Lal Kapoor, filed a criminal complaint alleging his daughter Dr. Monica Thapar was poisoned, later also claiming strangulation. The trial court discharged the accused, Rajiv Thapar and others, on the basis of post‑mortem, forensic and inquest reports showing natural death due to a cardiac defect. The High Court set aside that discharge, but the Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could quash the proceedings under s.482 CrPC. It held that the material relied upon by the accused – post‑mortem report, CFSL report, inquest report, letters and telephone bills – was of sterling quality, ruled out the allegations and indicated that proceeding to trial would be an abuse of process. Applying the Bhajan Lal parameters, the Court found no malice or ulterior motive. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order and quashed the criminal proceedings.
Issues considered
- The scope of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings at the committal or charge‑framing stage.
- Whether the material (post‑mortem, forensic, inquest reports, correspondence and telephone records) is sufficient to exonerate the accused and justify quashing.
- Whether the complaint was motivated by malice or an ulterior motive, invoking the Bhajan Lal test.
- Whether the High Court erred in overturning the Additional Sessions Judge’s discharge order under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 176, s. 202, s. 227, s. 228, s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 3048, s. 304B, s. 496, s. 498A
Subjects
Section 482 CrPCquashing of criminal proceedingsabuse of processdowry deathpoisoning allegationpost‑mortem reportforensic reportBhajan Lal testhigh court jurisdictioncriminal procedurenatural deathevidence evaluation
Judgment
[2013) 3 S.C.R. 52
A RAJIV THAPAR & ORS.
v.
MADAN LAL KAPOOR
(Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)
JANUARY 23, 2013
B
[D.K. JAIN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing
of proceedings -Scope - Death of married woman -
C Complaint by deceased's father -Magistrate summoned the
accused-husband and in-laws and committed the case to the
Court of Sessions - Sessions Judge discharged the accused-
appellants - High Court quashed the discharge order -
Justification - Held: On facts, not justified - Post-mortem
o report, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report, as
a/so the inquest report, sufficient to exculpate the appellants
from the a/legations levelled in the complaint - Merely
because the body of the deceased wife had fumed blue, not
a sufficient basis to infer that she had been poisoned to, death
E - Respondent-complainant himself was uncertain about the
manner in which his daughter had allegedly .died ~
Respondent had continued to represent before the SOM,
Delhi, that he would produce the mother of the deceased, who
knew the facts best of all - Despite that, the mother of the
F deceased did not appear in the inquest proceedings to record
her statement - Telephone bills and other documentary
evidence demonstrated that contrary to the a/legations made
in the complaint, relationship between the two families was
cordial and affectionate even at the time of the illness of the
wife - The matter needed to have been evaluated, on the
G basis of one of the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case,
namely, whether the criminal proceedings initiated by
respondent-complainant were actuated by malice and ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to
H 52
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 53
spite him due to some private/personal grudge - Judicial A
conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on
the basis of the material examined by it, to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants-accused -
Criminal proceedings against appellants-accused accordingly
set aside - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.498A, 3048 rlw s.120-8. B
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Jurisdiction
of the High Court u/s.482, if it chooses to quash the initiation
of the prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing
process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of C
framing of charges - Discussed - Steps delineated to
/determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court ul
s.482.
The wife of appellant no.1 had two bouts of illness. D
In the first episode, she was diagnosed as suffering from
Malaria. She was treated for the same and discharged.
Thereafter, she was diagnosed with a large hole in her
heart, on the basis of an echo-cardiography. While at a
hospital at Surat, she died of a massive heart attack. The E
body of the deceased was transported by rail to Delhi.
The immediate family of appellant no.1 's wife including
her father (respondent) were present at the time of arrival
of the body at Delhi.
F
The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging unnatural death of
his daughter, by poisoning. Based on the statements
made by the respondent-complainant and his son, the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, summoned the accused-
husband and in-laws and having formed an opinion, that G
there was sufficient material to proceed against the
accused under Sections 498, 496, 3048 read with
Sections 120-B of IPC, committed the case to the Court
of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A concluded, that no prima facie case was made out against
the appellants/accused either under Section 3048 of IPC
or under Section 498 IPC and accordingly discharged the
appellants/accused. Dissatisfied, the respondent-
complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition -in the High
B Court which set aside the order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi, and therefore the instant appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The High Court, in exercise of its
C jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make
a just and rightful choice. The issue being examined in
the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the initiation of the
prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing
D process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage
of framing of charges. These are all stages before the
commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters
would naturally be available for later stages as well. The
power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC,
E at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far
reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate
the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing
the prosecution /complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution, care
F and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to .
be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the
accused is such, that would lead to the conclusion, that
his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
G indubitable facts; the material produced is such, as would
rule out and displace the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused; and the material
produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations
levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be
H sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 55
levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the A
necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material
relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted,
or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being
material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material
relied upon by the accused should be such, as would B
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a
situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would
persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that c
would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure
the ends of justice. [Paras 21, 22) [81-8 and F-H; 82-A-F]
1.2. The following steps may be delineated to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by
an accused by invoking the power vested in the High D
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and E
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
F
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained
in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the
accusations as false. G
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material
is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A the prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the
court, and would not serve the ends of justice?
B If the answer to all the steps is in the
affirmative, judicial conscience of the High
Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
C Such exercise of power, besides doing justice
to the accused, would save precious court
. time, which would otherwise be wasted in
holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings
arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear
D that the same would not conclude in the
conviction of the accused. [Para 23) [82-F-H;
83-A-F]
1.3. In the instant case, the material in the nature of
E the post-mortem report, the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory's report, as also the inquest report, would be
sufficient to exculpate the appellants from the allegations
and accusations levelled in the complaint. From the
documents/material relied upon by the appellants, for
exactly the same reasons as have been projected on
F behalf of the appellants, this Court is satisfied to
conclude, that the death of Dr. Monica Thapar was not
caused by poisoning. Merely because her body had
turned blue, when it arrived at Delhi, is not a sufficient
basis to infer that she had been poisoned to death. In
G fact material relied upon by the appellants is sufficient to
condemn the factual basis of the accusation as false.
[Paras 26, 27] [85-E·G]
1.4. It also needs to be noticed, that Madan Lal
H Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) took a
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 57
summersault before the Additional Sessions Judge; Delhi A
by alleging, that Dr. Monica Thapar had been
strangulated by the appellants, (even though the
assertion in the complaint was, that she had been
poisoned to death). To d.etermine the veracity of the
allegation of strangulation, as the cause of her death, the B
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi summoned Dr. L.T.
Ramani, Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, New Delhi
and Dr. Amit Banerjee, Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery,
G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi (members of the Medical
Board which had conducted the post-mortem c
examination) to clarify the altered accusation levelled by
Madan Lal Kapoor. The aforesaid doctors, as is apparent
from the order dated 7.8.1999 passed by the Additional .
Sessions Judge, Delhi, opined in the negative. They
affirmed, that the death of Dr. Monica Thapar had not been 0
caused by strangulation. This Court is therefore satisfied
to affirm, that the death of Dr. Monica Thapar has not
been shown to have been caused by strangulation. [Para
28] [85-H; 86-A-E]
1.5: Telephone bills demonstrate, that phone calls E
were regularly made from the residence of Rajiv Thapar
(appellant no. 1), to the maternal family of Dr. Monica
Thapar. The family of the husband of Dr. Monica Thapar
was in consistent and regular contact with the other
family members also. This relationship is shown to have F
been subsisting even at the time of the illness of Dr.
Monica Thapar which proved to be fatal. Of utmost
importance is a letter written by Raj iv Kapoor (the brother
of the deceased, and the son of Madan Lal Kapoor, the
respondent-complainant). In a letter dated 22.9.1992, just G
four days before the death of Dr. Monica Thapar (on
26.9.1992), Rajiv Kapoor showered praise on the
immediate family of Rajiv Thapar residing at Delhi. His
letter to his sister describes her in-laws in Delhi, as "very
affectionate and very caring". The telephone bills, as H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A also the letter addressed by Rajiv Kapoor to his sister (Dr.
Monica Thapar), are materials of sterling quality. Neither
of the said materials has been controverted, either on
veracity or on truthfulness. All this, would undoubtedly
and inevitably result in concluding, that the relationship
B between the two families was cordial and affectionate.
Clearly contrary to what has been alleged in the
complaint. [Para 29] [86-F-H; 87-A-C]
1.6. It is conclusive from the facts and circumstances
of the case exhaustively discussed in the foregoing
C paragraphs, that all the steps delineated in the paragraph
1.2 above, can be answered in the affirmative, on the
basis of the material relied by the accused, more
particularly, the post-mortem examination report dated
28.9.1992 conducted by a Medical Board comprising of
D four doctors, whose integrity has not been questioned by
the respondent-complainant; the chemical analysis
findings contained in the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory's report dated 9.2.1993 which has not been
disputed by the respondent-complainant; the inquest
E report of the SOM, Delhi, dated 6.7.1993, findings whereof
have been painstakingly recorded by involving the
respondent-complainant; the letter of Rajiv Kapoor (the
brother of the deceased) dated 22.9.1992 addressed to
Dr. Monica Thapar just four days before her death, the
F contents and authenticity whereof are not subject matter
of challenge at the hands of the respondent-complainant;
and finally, the telephone bills produced by the
appellants-accused substantiating consistent and regular
contact between the rival families, which have not been
G questioned. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in
concluding, that the judicial conscience of the High Court
ought to have persuaded it, on the basis of the material
examined by it, to quash the criminal proceedings
initiated against the appellants-accused. [Para 31] [87-F-
H H; 88-A-C]
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 59
1.7. From the narration of the facts recorded above, A
it emerges, that even though the respondent-complainant
Madan Lal Kapoor, in his complaint dated 6.7.1993,
adopted a ·clear and categoric stance, that his daughter
Dr. Monica Thapar had been poisoned to death, before
the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the respondent- B
complainant ventured to suggest, that the appellants-
accused had strangulated her. The Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi, summoned two of the doctors who were
members of the Medical Board which had conducted the
post-mortem examination, and sought clarifications from c
them. He also recorded the statement of one of the said
doctors. The Additional Sessions Judge, thereupon,
ruled out the plea of strangulation. When the respondent-
complainant himself was uncertain about the manner in
which his daughter had allegedly died, the High Court 0
should have viewed the matter keeping in mind the
likelihood of the hurt caused to a father who had lost his
daughter within one year of her marriage. The matter
needed to have been evaluated, on the basis of one of
the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case, namely, E
whether the criminal proceedings initiated by Madan Lal
Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) were actuated by
malice and ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused with a view to spite him due to some private/
personal grudge. There is yet another reason emerging
fr"m the facts of the case which needed to be kept in F
mmd. Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant)
had continued to represent before the SOM, Delhi, that
he would produce the mother of the deceased, who knew
the facts best of all. Despite that, the mother of the
deceased did not appear in the inquest proceedings to G
record her statement, even though a number of
opportunities were afforded to the respondent-
complainant to produce her. The permissible inference is
that he was himself not privy to the facts. The fact that
the mother of the deceased had not appeared to record H
60 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A a statement against the appellants-accused has to have
some reason/justification. Would a mother who believes
that her daughter had been poisoned/strangulated,
restrain herself from recording her statement, tlespite the
persuasion of her husband? Probably not. In a factual
B situation not as clear as the one in hand, facts such as
these, could be taken into consideration by a High Court
for recording its satisfaction, on the parameters
formulated above. [Para 32) (88-E-H; 89-B-F]
1.8. The criminal proceedings against the appellants-
C accused are accordingly set aside. The order of the High
Court is accordingly also set aside, but on grounds
different from those taken into consideration by the High
Court. [Para 33) [89-F-G]
D Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766:
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 197; State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath
Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568: 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 460: Suresh
Kumar Tekriwal Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 12 SCC 278;
State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC
E 659: 1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 189; State of M.P. Vs. Mohan/al
Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338; State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Unga
Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522: 2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 147;
Rukmini Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors. (2008) 14
SCC 1: 2008 (14) SCR 271; State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
F Bhajan Lal & Ors. 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335: 1990 (3) Suppl.
SCR 259 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
1996 (4) Suppl. SCR 197 referred to Para 17, 18
G 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR 460 referred to Para 17, 18, 20
(2005) 12 sec 21a referred to Para 17
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 1·a9 referred to Para 17
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 61
(2000) s sec 338 referred to Para 17 A
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 147 referred to Para 17
2008 (14) SCR 271 referred to Para 20
1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 259 referred to Para 32 B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 174 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.05.2008 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal ·Revision Petition No. C
42 of 2000.
Suryakant Singla, Ajay Veer Singh, R.K. Verma, Atul
Agarwal, Shagun Bhatnagar, U.R. Bokadia, Ashish Saini,
Mohd. lrshad Hanif for the Appellant.
D
Shree Pal Singh, Rahul Singh, K. Sita Rama Rao for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Rajiv Thapar (appellant no. 1 herein) married Dr. Monica
Kapoor on 30.11.1991. After her marriage, Dr. Monica Thapar
got admission in a Post Graduate Diploma course in
Gynaecology (DGO) at Medical College, Surat, in June 1992. F
Accordingly, she started working as a Resident at the aforesaid
Medical College. At his own request, Rajiv Thapar, who was
(and still is) a member of the Indian Revenue Services, was
transferred from Ahmedabad to Surat. On 16.9.1992, while the
husband and wife were living at Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar fell G
ill. For her treatment, she was admitted to Mahavir Hospital,
Surat. She was diagnosed as suffering from Malaria .. Having
been treated for the same, she was discharged on 20.9.1992.
Two days thereafter, Dr. Monica Thapar again fell ill on
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A 22.9.1992. This time, she was taken to Medical College, Surat
i.e., the hospital where she was herself working as a Resident.
She was first examined by a radiologist, and thereafter, by Dr.
Girish Kazi, a cardiologist. It was suspected, that she has a
hole in her heart. Based on the aforesaid diagnosis, Dr.
B Dumaswala, another cardiologist, conducted Doppler echo-
cardiography. The said echo-cardiography confirmed the
presence of a large hole in her heart. On the advice of doctors
who attended on Dr. Monica Thapar at Medical College, Surat,
she was shifted to Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, on
c 24.9.1992. While at Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr.
Monica Thapar allegedly suffered a massive heart attack on
26.9.1992. The same supposedly proved fatal.
3. The factum of death of Dr. Monica Thapar was conveyed
to the immediate family of Rajiv Thapar, as well as to the family
D of the deceased. A decision was taken to cremate the dead
body at Delhi. Accordingly, after embalming the body of Dr.
Monica Thapar, it was transported by rail to Delhi on 27 .9.1992.
The immediate family of Dr. Monica Thapar including her father
Madan Lal Kapoor (respondent-complainant herein) were
E present at the time of arrival of the body at Delhi.
4. Madan Lal Kapoor made a complaint to the Police
Control Room alleging, that he suspected that his daughter had
been poisoned. This suspicion was based on the fact, that the
F body had turned blue. On the aforesaid complaint. the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of powers vested in
him under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as, the Cr.P.C.), initiated inquest
proceedings. In the first instance, the body of the deceased
G was subjected to a post-mortem examination, for which the
following Medical Board was constituted:-
(i) Dr. Bharat Singh, Medical Superintendent, Civil
Hospital, Delhi.
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 63
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
(ii) Dr. L.T. Ramani, Chief Medical Officer, Civil A
Hospital, Delhi.
(iii) Dr. Beena Malhotra, Professor, Pathology, G.B.
Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
,
(iv) Dr. Amit Banerjee, Professor, Cardiothoracic B
Surgery, G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi.
The Medical Board came to the conclusion, that Dr.
Monica Thapar had died of cardiac decomposition. The final
opinion of the Medical Board, was recorded in a report dated c
28.9.1992, in the following words:-
"OPINION In view of the clinical reports submitted and post
mortem findings observed, the Board of Direcors is of the
opinion that, death is consequent to cardiac
decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect & D
pulmonarv hypertension. No definite opinion can be given
about falciparm Malaria, histopathological assessment.
Viscera is preserved for chemical analysis as E
desired by SOM. Time since death is about 48 hours and
is consistent with the history." ·
(emphasis is ours)
During the post-mortem examination, samples from the F
stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blooCI of the
deceased's body were taken. These samples were sent for
chemical examination to the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, New Delhi. The report of the Forensic Laboratory
dated 9.2.1993, recorded the following conclusions:- G
"SPECIFICATION OF THE ARTICLE CONTAINED IN
THE PARCEL .
1. Parcel contained:
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R.
A (a) One wide-mouth bottle containing stomach,
intestine with contents, Exhbt 1a.
(b) One wide mouth bottle containing liver, spleen &
kidney, Exhbt 1b.
B (c) One phial containing few drops blood, Exhbt 1c.
xxx xxx xxx
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
C The Exhibit nos. 1a, 1b and 1c gave negative tests for
common poisons."
It is therefore apparent, that the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory, New Delhi, having analysed the samples from the
o stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood, concluded
that the same did not contain any "common poison".
5. Insofar as the inquest proceedings initiated by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the SOM,
Delhi) are concerned, it would be relevant to mention, that
E Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant herein) the
father of the deceased, in the first instance, refused to record
any statement before the SOM, Delhi, on the ground that he
would record his statement only after the receipt of the post-
mortem report. Even on the receipt of the post-mortem report,
F the said Madan Lal Kapoor and even his son Rajiv Kapoor,
refused' to record their statements before the SOM, Delhi, on
the assertion, that the mother of the deceased knew the facts
best of all, and as such, her statement needed to be recorded
first of all. It was pointed out, that her statement could not be
G recorded immediately because she was in a state of shock. It
may be noted, that neither the mother nor the brother of Dr.
Monica Thapar appeared before the SOM, Delhi, to record their
statements. Madan Lal Kapoor had sought time thrice, from
the SOM, Delhi, to get the statement of his wife recorded.
H Madan Lal Kapoor, father of the deceased, however, eventually
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 65
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
recorded his statement before the SOM, Delhi, even though the A
mother of the deceased had not appeared before the
Magistrate to record her statement.
6. The SDM, Delhi, during the course of inquest
proceedings, recorded the statements of the, following accused 8
p.ersons:-
(i) Rajiv Thapar (husband of the deceased; appellant
no. 1 herein).
(ii) Kusum Thapar (mother-in"law of the deceased; C
appellant no. 5 herein).
(iii) Sangeeta Thapar (wife of the brother-in-law of the ·
deceased; appellant no. 4 herein).
In addition, the SOM, Delhi, recorded the statement of Dr. D
Pritu Dhalaria (a colleague of the deceased at Medical College,
Surat). Insofar as the accusations and counter allegations are
concerned, it is not essential to refer to the statements of any
of the rival parties. It is however, appropriate to refer to the
statement of Dr. Pritu Dhalaria. Since the same is not available E
on the record of the case, reference thereto in the inquest
report, is being extracted hereunder:-
"Statement of Mr. Pritu Dhalaria
Sh. Pritu Dhalaria stated that Monika Thapar was known F
to him from the date she got admission in the Medical
College in June, 92. And he regards her as his elder
sister. He further stated that both Monika and Rajeev were
happy and living a happy married life. On 17th September.
1992. he came to know that Monika was ill and admitted G
in the Mahavir Hospital. In the evening of 17.9.1992. when
he met Monika he came to know that she was suffering
from Malaria. And on 24.9.1992, he came to know that
she was admitted in the Urmil Heart Hospital. He further
stated after Echo-Cardiography doctor declared that H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A Monika was suffering from A.S.D. (Larger Hole in Heart)
and pulmonary Hypertension. He stated that on 26.9.1992.
at about 2.00-2.15 p.m .. Monika's situation became
serious. And inspite of all attempts of doctors. she got
heart attack and died on 3.30 p.m. He also stated that
B the MS of Civil Hospital. Surat. Dr. Khanna was present
alongwith the other doctors at that time."
(emphasis is ours)
7. The statement of Dr. Pritu Dhalaria fully coincides with
C the version expressed by the appellants-accused. That Dr.
Monica Thapar had two bouts of illness. In the first episode,
. she was diagnosed as suffering from Malaria. She was treated
for the same and discharged. Thereafter, she was diagnosed
with a large hole in her heart, on the basis of an echo-
D cardiography. She died of a massive heart attack on
26.9.1992. At the time of her death, Dr. Khanna and other
doctors of the Civil Hospital, Surat, were present.
8. The SOM, Delhi, in his inquest report dated 6.7.1993,
E recorded the following conclusions:-
"Conclusion
Allegation levelled by Shri Madan Lal Kapoor, father of the
deceased regarding harassment and dowry death, it
F appears that allegation are not correct in the light of the
fact of Natural death in the statements the husband and in
laws of the deceased produced photocopies of letters
written by Sh. Madan Lal Kapoor and Rajiv Kapoor.
Perusal of the letter shows that both the families enjoyed
G a normal happy relationship and not an abnormal and
strained relation till the death of Monika.
Sh. Rajeev Thapar has produced copy of telephone
Bill of residential phone shows the Telephone Cells are
made to Madan lal phone No.574390 at Mohali
H Chandigarh on 17.09.92, 21.09.92, 24.09.92 and 25.09.92
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 67
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
during the course of illness of Monika A
Sh. Rajeev Kapoor, the brother of the deceased well
aware of the situation of Monika as per his letter dated
22nd September, 92 and at that time the families are
enjoying a very good relationship. So it is not possible in
8
these circumstances that Monkka was harassed by her in-
laws. The few lines as under:-
"How are you Now? I hope by now you will have
recovered from Malaria. We should have faith in
God. Please give top priority to your health. C
Off and on I go to Janakpuri, all are very nice there,
very affectionate and very caring. You must be
knowing that Sanjay Bhai Saheb have been
promoted to the rank of Squadron Leader.. 0
The brother is no likely to praise the family of his
sister's in-laws in case his sister is being harassed for
dowry.
Statement of Sh. Pritu, Colleague of Mrs. Monika, E
also shows that Monika and Rajiv enjoyed a very happy
and cordial relationship, which also shows that allegations
of harassment does not appear to be correct. According
to the statements given before me Monika stayed with her
in-laws in Delhi only for 4-5 days. Hence the charged of F
harassment levelled does not appear to be correct. From
the statement and evidence produced before me, it does
not appear that she was being harassed. Report of Sh.
S.K. Pathi M.d. Radiologist during the treatment of Monika.
"Mild Cardiac enlargement with dilated pulmonary G
vessels and evidence of Pulmonary Oedema. Advise:
Echccardiography."
Report of Dr. J.C. Damaswala M.D. during the treatment
of Monika. H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A "Large osteum secundum ASD Measuring 3.0 cm with Ltd.
To Rt. Shunt on colour flow and conventional Doppler."
Death certificate issued by Urmil Heart and Lung Centre:-
Cause of Death: Cardio-Respiratory arrest due to Malaria
B ASD C Pulmonary Hypertension.
The post-mortem of the dead body revels that death is due
to Cardiac de-compensation due to enlarged atrial Septal
Defect and pulmonary Hypertension (As per board of
c doctors)
The CFSL report of the viscera reveals negative tests
for common poison.
Inquest proceedings started on 27.09.1992 and till
D now mother of the deceased has not come forward to give
her statement. Father of the deceased visited SOM office
three times but never brought his wife for recording
statement. Now there is no point in waiUng for her
statement when death is proved natural and beyond any
E doubt.
The case of the death is clearly determined to be
natural inquest proceedings under Section 176 Cr.PC
may be closed as foul play in the death of Smt. Monika
Thapar is completely ruled out and the allegation made in
F the PCR called on 29.09.1992 have not been turned out
by the evidence on record.
Sd/-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi.
G
6.7.1993"
A perusal of the inquest report reveals that the SOM, Delhi,
concluded that" ... foul play in the death of Smt. Monika Thapar
is completely ruled out..." The SOM, Delhi, also held "... death
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS .. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 69
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
is proved natural and beyond any doubt. .. " A
9. On 29.9.1992, Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-
complainant), father of the deceased Dr. Monica Thapar, fried
a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Prior
thereto, on the same issue, he had filed similar complaints B
before the Police Commissioner, Surat, Police Officer lncharge,
Umra Police Station, Athwa Lines, Surat and Dy.
Commissioner, Athwa, Crime Women Cell, South Moti Bagh,
Nanakpura, New Delhi. The aforesaid complaints had been
filed by the father of the deceased praying for registration of a C
First Information Report, interalia, under Sections 3048 and
498A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the complaints filed by
Madan Lal Kapoor did not bear any fruitful result, he filed a
criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on
6.7.1993 alleging unnatural death of Dr. Monica Thapar, by
poisoning. Relevant portion of the complaint made by Madan D
Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) is being extracted
hereunder:-
"10. That in the second week of September, 1992,
accused no.1 Rajiv Thapar called his mother from Delhi, E
on the false pretext that Monika was pregnant and needed
care. As a matter of fact. it was in the pursuance of the
conspiracy hatched by the accused themselves to do away
with the life of Monika in some mysterious manner and on
the pretext the mother of Rajiv Thapar accused no.1 was F
called from Delhi. and sometimes thereafter on that pretext
she was admitted in some hospital of their choice. where
the conspiracy could be implemented.
11. That on 26.9.1992 the complainant enquired on G
telephone from accused no.2 about the welfare of his
daughter but now she was quite alright and there was
nothing worry about her. The complainant enquired from
him about the details of her illness and hospital where she
was admitted, but accused no.2 did not disclose as the
voice of Mr. Thapar accused no.2 was some what in co- H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 3 S.C.R.
A herent on the phone, the complainant suspected something
wrong, when the complainant told him that he along with
his wife was going to Surat, accused no.2 told him that
there was no need of going and everything was alright, but
when the complainant told him in clear term that he
B apprehended something wrong regarding the illness of his
daughter, on which accused no.2 told the complainant on
phone that Monika had expired.
12. That accused no.2 in conspiracy with his co-accused
did not disclosed the kind of illness, of the treatment she
c was given with a criminal intention that the complainant and
his wife may not able to see their daughter and give her
proper treatment. Mrs. Monika was not suffering from any
disease. Of course, due to constant harassment, torture,
physical and violent and mental torture, her health had
D broken down and she fell ill. Her death was due to constant
torture for not meeting the illegal demand of a Maruti Car.
13. That the dead body of Monika was brought to Delhi
under mysterious circumstances. no permission was
E obtained for taking dead body from Surat to Delhi in the
train.
14. That the complainant and his wife reached Delhi and
saw some poisonous substance had been administered
to her. on this report of the complainant. the post-mortem
F was conducted at Delhi.
15. That the complainant was moved hell and earth in the
matter. He has given complaint to police Commissioner,
Surat. Deputy Commissioner, Athwa Crime Women Cell,
G South, Moti Bagh, Nanakpura, New Delhi, Police Officer
lncharge, Umra , Police Station, Athwa Lines, Surat and
another authority; but no action has been taken, even the
copy of the Post Mortem Report has not been supplied
to the complainant.
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 71
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
16. That the death of Mrs. Monika took place within a year A
of her marriage under mysterious circumstances on
account of demand of dowry which demand was not met
and thereafter she was tortured mentally and physically and
leading to her illness and in that condition she was
administered some poisonous matter. The accused have B
committed serious offences under Sections 3048/1208/
498A/109 l.P.C. They be tried according to law and
convicted.
Sd/-
Dated 6.7.93 Madan Lal Kapoor C
Complainant"
(emphasis is ours)
10. The complaint extracted above, reveals mere
aspersions, based on suspicion. The complaint did not D
express any concrete fact disclosing how the appellants-
accused were responsible for having taken his daughter's life.
In fact, the narration of facts hereafter reveal, the shifting stance
of the father of the deceased, about the cause of his daughter's
death. On 24.5.1995, Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent- E
complainant) examined himself and his son Rajiv Kapoor
before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in order to
substantiate the allegations levelled by him in respect of the
unnatural death of his daughter Dr. Monica Thapar. Based on
the statements made by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent- F
complainant) and his son Rajiv Kapoor, the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi, vide order dated 24.8.1995, summoned the
accused. The Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, while summoning
the accused, recorded the following observations:-
G
"It is further alleged that at the time of her death she was
doing Diploma in Gynaecology in territories at Surat where
his son in law was employed. The complainant did not
receive any telephone call either from his daughter or son
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A in law and he therefore rang up to Ramesh Thapar at Delhi
to enquire about the welfare of his daughter and Ramesh
Thapar told him on telephone that his wife Kusum Thapar
had been called to Surat to look after his daughter as she
was said to be pregnant but subsequently she was aborted.
8 The complainant enquired from him as to the particulars
of the hospital where she was admitted and what was the
ailment she was suffering from, she replied that her
daughter was quite all right and he should not worry about
her welfare again insisted to given particulars of the
c hospital and the complainant suspected that her in-laws
were not behaving with her properly and were harassing,
therefore, he insisted that he himself and his wife shall go
to Surat and he told him that he suspected some foul play
in the matter on which Ramesh Thapar told him from Delhi
that his daughter Monika has already expired, and he
D
enquired as to where she will be cremated. The accused
brought the dead body of his daughter from Surat to Delhi
but they did not allow him and his family members to see
the dead body but on their insistence, they saw the dead
. body of his daughter and he saw that the face and mouth
E of his daughter was blue. He suspected that her daughter
has been given some poisonous matter, as a result of
which she had died. He informed the police and the police
came and got the post mortem of the dead body
conducted, but thereafter nothing was done by police in
F this matter. He· sent a registered letter to the Police
Commissioner, Delhi and he went to Surat and filed a
complaint before the Police Commissioner but nothing
was done. The complainant suspect that his daughter has
been admitted because his daughter had not brought
G sufficient dowry according to the status and had also failed
to fulfill the demands of above named accused persons
of bringing dowry and Maruti Car and cash.
I have carefully considered the argument put forward
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 73
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
by Ld. Counsel for complainant. I have also carefully gone A
through the complaint and have carefully considered the
preliminary evidence adduced by the complainant in
support of his case, and from the material on record in my
considered opinion, there are sufficient grounds for
proceedings against all the accused persons for B
committing offence punishable u/s. 304B/498A/406/120B
IPC.
Accordingly, I order that accused Rajiv Thapar,
Ramesh Thapar, Sangeet Thapar and Mrs. Kusum Thapar C
be summoned for 19.12.1995 on filing of PF."
11. The appellants assailed the aforesaid summoning
order dated 24.8.1995, by filing a petition under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as, the High Court). The challenge raised was D
primarily on the ground, that Madan Lal Kapoor (the
1
respondent- complainant) had suppressed vital material, in his
·1
complaint. It was alleged, that the complainant did not disclose
the particulars of the post-mortem examination, the report of the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, as also, the inquest E
report. The High Court dismissed the aforesaid petition
summarily on the premise, that the same had been prematurely
filed. Accordingly, liberty was granted to the appellants to move
the trial Court, if they were so advised, for seeking a recall of
( the summoning order (dated 24.8.1995). Immediately, on the F
disposal of the petition by the High Court, the appellants moved
an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi,
praying for a recall of the summoning order dated 24.8.1995.
The aforesaid application was dismissed by the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi on 23.5.1998 by observing that" ... I am of G
the opinion that at this stage, there is no ground to review or
recall the order dated 24.8.1995 passed by my L.D.
Predecessor, whereby he summoned the accused for the
above stated offences after taking cognizance ... "
12. Thereupon, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A recorded preliminary evidence. Based thereon, and having
formed an opinion, that there was sufficient material to proceed
against the accused under Sections 498, 496, 304B read with
Sections 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the Metropolitan
Magistrate, Delhi, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
B as the offence under Section 304B is exclusively triable by a
Court of Sessions.
13. While examining the matter further, with the pointed
object of either discharging the accused (under Section 227
of the Cr.P.C.) or framing charges against them (under Section
C 228 of the Cr.P.C.), the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi took
notice of the fact that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-
complainant) had not brought the following record/material/
documents to the notice of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi:-
D (i) The post-mortem report dated 28.9.1992.
(ii) The inquest report dated 6.4.1993.
(iii) The correspondence made by the respondent and
his son.
E
The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi also felt, that the
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, had not fully complied with the
provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (requiring him to
enquire into the case himself). Therefore, the Additional
F Sessions Judge, Delhi examined the allegations made in the
complaint in conjunction with all of the aforesaid material.
14. Since the learned counsel representing Madan Lal
Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) had raised an additional
G plea (before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi), that the
deceased was also suspected of having been strangulated to
death, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi summoned Dr.
LT. Ramani and Dr. Amit Banerjee (who were members of the
Medical Board, which had conducted the post-mortem
examination). The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, sought
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPO.OR 75
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
clarifications on the allegations of strangulation, from the two A·
doctors. The Court also recorded the statement of Dr. Amit
Banerjee.
15. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi then heard
detailed arguments on charge. Upon consideration, the B
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, recorded detailed findings,
which are being summarized hereunder:-
(i) The inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM,
Delhi, which interalia contained the broad facts of
the married 1ife ·of the deceased, were inconsistent C
with the theory of harassment extracted in the
complaint.
(ii) The accused Rajiv Thapar, husband of Dr. Monica
Thapar (deceased) had been seeking medical D
advice, and had been getting the deceased's
medical treatment at Surat, whereupon it came to
be discovered, that she had a large hole in her
heart.
(iii) The Medical Board which conducted the post- E
mortem examination on the body of the deceased,
confirmed the conclusion certified by Urmil Heart
and Lung Centre, Surat, that her death occurred
because of cardiac de-compensation, and that Dr.
Monica Thapar had died a natural death. F
(iV) The plea of strangulation raised on behalf of the
complainant was held to be unsubstantiated
consequent upon the clarification rendered by Dr.
L.T. Ramani and Dr. Amit Banerjee. G
(v) The post-mortem report and the Central Forensic
Science Laboratory's report, which recorded a
negative opinion on poisoning, were taken into
consideration to conclude, that the death of Dr.
Monica Thapar was not due to poisoning. H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A (vi) The statement made by Dr. Pritu Dhalaria, a
colleague of the deceased at the Medical College,
Surat, referred to in the inquest proceedings
(relevant portion extracted above), was relied upon
to disbelieve the theory of foul play, in the death of
B Dr. Monica Thapar.
(vii) Based on the facts recorded in the inquest report,
as also in the statement of Dr. Pritu Dhalaria, that
Dr. Monica Thapar had died after her admission
and treatment in the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre,
c Surat, it was deduced, that Rajiv Thapar, the
husband of the deceased could have neither
strangulated nor poisoned the deceased, while she
was admitted for treatment at the Urmil Heart and
Lung Centre, Surat.
D
Based, interalia, on the aforesaid evaluation of the complaint
filed by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant), the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi concluded, that no prima
facie case was made out against the appellants/accused either
E under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code or under Section
498 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi, accordingly discharged the appellants/accused by an
order dated 7.8.1999.
16. Dissatisfied with the order dated 7.8.1999 passed by
F the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Madan Lal Kapoor (the
respondent-complainant) filed a Criminal Revision Petition
(bearing no. 42 of 2000) in the High Court. The aforesaid
Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed in default on
11.8.2005. The order dated 11.8.2005 was assailed through
G a Special Leave Petition (bearing no. SLP (Crl.) no. 3303 of
2006) before this Court. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition
was allowed by this Court on 31.8.2007. The matter was
remanded back to the High Court for adjudication on merits. It
is thereupon, that the High Court passed the impugned order
H dated 8.5.2008, setting aside the order dated 7.8.1999 passed
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 77
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The instant order A
dated 8.5.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the present
appeal.
17. A perusal of the order of the High Court would reveal
that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, had primarily relied
8
on certain observations made in the judgment rendered by this
Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration, (1996) 9 SCC
766:-
"15. But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no
prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time C
of the Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only
. for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to
pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful
that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy
. pressure of work-load. If the Sessions Judge is almost D
certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or
a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip
the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code
itself'
E
Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant), before the
High Court, had relied upon the judgment in State of Orissa Vs.
Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568, to contend that the
judgment relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi,
having been overruled, had resulted in an erroneous conclusion. F
For the same proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment
of this Court in Suresh Kumar Tekriwa/ Vs. State of Jharkhand,
(2005) 12 SCC 278. On behalf of the complainant, reliance
was al&.) placed on the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659, tp contend, that only the
material placed on record by the prosecution, could be gone G
into at the time of framing charges. And if, on the basis of the
said material, the commission of the alleged offence was prima
facie made out, the charge(s) was/were to be framed. At the
stage of framing of charges, it was submitted, that the
requirement was not to determine the sufficiency (or otherwise) H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A of evidence to record a conviction. For this, reliance was
placed on State of M.P. Vs. Mohan/al Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338,
wherein this Court had concluded, that the requirement was a
satisfaction, that a prima facie case was made out. On behalf
of Madan Lal Kapoor, reliance was also placed on State of A.P.
B Vs. Golconda Unga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522, to contend that
at this stage, meticulous examination of the evidence was not
called for.
18. As against the submission advanced on behalf of
Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant), the
C appellants/accused contended, that the Court was justified in
considering the material on the record of the case, and on the
basis thereof, to arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion. In
this behalf, it was averred that the post-mortem report, the
report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, the inquest
D proceedings recorded by"the SOM, Delhi, and the letters
addressed by the family members of the complainant (duly
noticed in the inquest proceedings), were a part of the record
of the case, and as such, were to be taken into consideration
while passing the orders contemplated under Sections 227 and
E 228 of the Cr.P.C. The submission advanced on behalf of
Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant) before the
High Court, was accepted. The High Court arrived at the
conclusion, that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had
erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by this
F Court in Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration (supra), which
had already been overruled by the judgment rendered by a
larger Bench in State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi
(supra).
19. While considering the contention advanced on behalf
G of the appellants/accused, the High Court concluded, that the
material/documents/record which the complainant was placing
reliance on, did not fall within the ambit and scope of the term
"record of the case" contained in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
According to the High Court, the record of the case referred to
H
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 79
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was only such record, documents A
and articles which, on consideration by the Magistrate, are sent
to the Court of Sessions, consequent upon passing an order
of commitment. The mate~ial and documents relied upon by
the appellants/accused in the present controversy would,
therefore, not fall within the zone of consideration at the hands B
of the Court of Session under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the submissions advanced at the behest of the
appellants/accused were declined. For the aforesaid reasons,
the High Court accepted the Criminal Revision Petition filed by
Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant). The order c
dated 7.8.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi was accordingly quashed. The parties were accordingly
directed to participate in the further proceedings before the
Court of Sessions.
20. We have considered the submissions advanced at the D
behest.of the rival parties. We are of the view, that in the facts
and circumstances of this case, the High Court had before it
an exhaustive and detailed order passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi, it ought to, therefore, have examined
the controversy, while keeping in mind the inherent power E
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. specially because
the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 7.8.1999, had
concluded, on the basis of the material relied upon by the
accused, that no case was made out against the accused. This
according to learned counsel, was permissible.in view of the F
inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is being extracted
hereunder:-
"482. Saving of inherent power of High Court G
Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the
inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as
may be necessary to give effect to any order this Code,
or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice." H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R.
A The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. can be exercised suo-moto to prevent the abuse of
process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice. This
Court had an occasion to examine the matter in State of Orissa
Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (supra) (incidentally the said
B judgment was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondent-complainant), wherein it was held thus:-
"29. Regarding the argument of accused having to face
the trial despite being in a position to produce
material of unimpeachable character of sterling
c quality. the width of the powers of the High Court
under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of
Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the
interests of justice the High Court can make such
orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of
D the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice within the parameters laid down in
Bhajan Lal's case."
(emphasis is ours)
E
Recently, this Court again had an occasion to examine the
ambit and scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in Rukmini
Narvekar Vs. Vijaya Satardekar & Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 1,
wherein in the main order it was observed, that the width of the
powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P .C. and
F under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was unlimited. In
the instant judgment, this Court held that the High Court could
make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of
the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice. In a concurring separate order passed in the same
G case, it was additionally observed, that under Section 482 of
the Cr.P.C., the High Court was free to consider even material,
that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a
decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.
The aforesaid parameters shall be kept in mind while we
H examine whether the High Court ought to have exercised its
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR
I
81
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the A
facts and circumstances of this case.
21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful
choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or
8
otherwise of allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant
against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining
how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused is.
Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion
or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/ C
complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the
accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in
giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/
complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the
complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The
converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is D
proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable
consequences. The accused would still be in a position to
succeed, by establishing his defences by producing evidence
in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments
rendered by this Court declaring the legal position, that in a E
case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled
allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled,
and have placed material before the Court, prima facie
evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must
be held. F
(
22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against
an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of G
committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These
are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The
same parameters would naturally be available for later stages
as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A have far reaching consequences, inasmuch as, it would negate
the prosecution's/complainant's case without allowing the
prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a
determination must always be rendered with caution, care and
circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section
s 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that
the material produced by the accused is such, that would lead
to the conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound,
reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is
such, as would rule out and displace the assertions contained
c in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material
produced is such, as would clearly reject and overrule the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled
by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule
out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any
0
evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should
not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably
refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The
material relied upon by the accused should be such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the
E actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation,
the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to
exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash
such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of
process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
F
23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing
paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an
accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under
G Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the
accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e.,
the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?
H (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 83
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in A
the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the
material is sufficient to reject and overrule the
factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e.,
the material is such, as would persuade a
reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the B
factual basis of the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/
complainant; and/or the material is such, that it
cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/ C
complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would
not serve the ends of justice? D
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of pow,er, besides E
doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time,
which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well
as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear
that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the
accused.
F
24. The complaint made by Madan Lal Kapoor (the
respondent-complainant) proceeds on the assumption, that his
daughter Dr. Monica Thapar was administered poison. The
said assumption was based on the fact, that the respondent-
complainant, (as also the members of his family), found the G
body of their daughter had turned blue when they laid their eyes
on it for the first time after her death. The motive disclosed in
the complaint is non-cordiality of relations between the
de~ased Dr. Monica Thapar, and the family members of her
husband (the appellants herein), on account of non-fulfillment H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A of dowry demands. Insofar as the allegation, that the appellants
had poisoned Dr. Monica Thapar to death is concerned, the
appellants have placed reliance on the post-mortem report
dated 28.9.1992, chemical analysis findings recorded in the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report dated 9.2.1993,
B the inquest report dated 6. 7.1993, and the order passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 7.8.1999. It is clear,
that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant), was
associated with the investigative process from the very moment
the body of Dr. Monica Thapar arrived at Delhi. It was at his
c instance, that the post-mortem examination was conducted.
The body of the deceased, after the same was subjected to
the post-mortem examination, was handed over jointly to Madan
Lal Kapoor (the father of the deceased) and to Rajiv Thapar
(the husband of the deceased). The cremation of the body of
Dr. Monica Thapar was carried out jointly by the two families.
D A high level Medical Board, constituted for conducting the post-
mortem examination, in unequivocal terms returned a finding,
that "cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septa!
defect & pulmonary hypertension" was the cause of Dr. Monica
Thapar's death. It would be pertinent to notice, that samples
E from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood of
the deceased's body were taken for forensic examination in
order to verify the allegation of poisoning levelled by Madan Lal
Kapoor. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi,
in its report dated 9.2.1993 negatived the aforesaid allegation
F by concluding, that the samples did not indicate the presence
of any common poisoning substance. Relying on the inquest
report dated 6.7.1993, rendered by the SDM, Delhi, it was
sought to be asserted, that echo-cardiography conducted at the
Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, disclosed the presence
G of a large hole in Dr. Monica Thapar's heart. Even according
to the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar
had suffered a massive heart attack, and had died at the said
hospital on 26.9.1992. It was the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants, that the aforesaid material is
H evidence of sterling quality which was sufficient to demonstrate,
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 85
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
that there was not the remotest possibility, that the trial against A
the appellants would lead to their conviction.
25. The evidence, relied upon by the appellant has not
been contested or refuted by Madan Lal Kapoor (the
respondent-complainant), even though he was aware of the
same when he filed the compl~int. During the course of the 8
proceeding before the committing Magistrate, and even before
Sessions Court and the High Court, the appellants had placed
emphatic reliance on the material referred to above. The same
remained unrefuted in the pleadings filed on behalf of Madan
Lal Kapoor. During the course of hearing at the stages referred C
to above, the veracity of the documents/material referred to
above was not contested. The aforesaid position has subsisted
even before this Court. It was accordingly submitted on behalf
of the appellants, that even if trial is allowed to proceed against
the appellants, at the culmination thereof, it would be impossible D
to return a finding of guilt against any of the accused.
26. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the
material in the nature of the post-mortem report, the Central
Forensic Science Laboratory's report, as also the inquest E
report, would be sufficient to exculpate the appellants from the
allegations and accusations levelled in the complaint.
27. We are one with the aforesaid submission. From the
documents/material relied upon by the appellants, for exactly
the same reasons as have been projected on behalf of the F
appellants, we are satisfied to conclude, that the death of Dr.
Monica Thapar was not caused by poisoning. Merely because
her body had turned blue, when it arrived at Delhi, in our view,
is not a sufficient basis to infer that she had been poisoned to
death. In fact material relied upon by the appellants is sufficient G
to condemn the factual basis of the accusation as false.
28. It also needs to be noticed, that Madan Lal Kapoor (the
respondent-complainant) took a summersault before the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by alleging, that Dr. Monica H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A Thapar had been strangulated by the appellants, (even though
the assertion in the complaint was, that she had been poisoned
to death). To determine the veracity of the allegation of
strangulation, as the cause of her death, the Additional
Sessions Judge, Delhi summoned Dr. LT. Ramani, Chief
B Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, New Delhi and Dr. Amit
Banerjee, Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B. Pant
Hospital, New Delhi (members of the Medical Board which had
conducted the post-mortem examination) to clarify the altered
accusation levelled by Madan Lal Kapoor. The aforesaid
doctors, as is apparent from the order dated 7.8.1999 passed
· C by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, opined in the
negative. They affirmed, that the death of Dr. Monica Thapar
had not been caused by strangulation. We are therefore
satisfied to affirm, that the death of Dr. Monica Thapar has not
been shown to have been caused by strangulation. On an
D overall examination of the matter, we have no other option,
specially in the absence of any submission to the contrary, but
to conclude, that the material relied upon by the appellants
would lead to the indubitable conclusion, that Dr. Monica
Thapar had not died on account of having been strangulated.
E
29. We shall now advert to the allegation made in the
complaint by Madan Lal Kapoor, that there was non-cordiality
of relations between the deceased Dr. Monica Thapar, and her
in-laws. Telephone bills demonstrate, that phone calls were
F regularly made from the residence of Rajiv Thapar (appellant
no. 1), to the maternal family of Dr. Monica Thapar. The fsmily
of the husband of Dr. Monica Thapar was in consistent and
regular contact with the other family members also. This
relationship is shown to have been subsisting even at the time
G of the illness of Dr. Monica Thapar which proved to be fatal.
Of utmost importance is a letter written by Rajiv Kapoor (the
brother of the deceased, and the son of Madan Lal Kapoor,
the respondent-complainant). In a letter dated 22.9.1992, just
four days before the death of Dr. Monica Thapar (on
H 26.9.1992), Rajiv Kapoor showered praise on the immediate
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 87
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
family of Rajiv Thapar residing at Delhi. His letter to his sister A
describes her in-laws in Delhi, as "very affectionate and very
caring". The telephone bills, as also the letter addressed by
Rajiv Kapoor to his sister (Dr. Monica Thapar), are materials
of sterling quality. Neither of the said materials has been
controverted, either on veracity or on truthfulness. All this, in B
our opinion, would undoubtedly and inevitably result in
concluding, that the relationship between the two families was
cordial and affectionate. Clearly contrary to what has been
alleg'd in the complaint.
30. Even though the statement of Dr. Pritu Dhalaria has C
·been relied upon by the SOM, Delhi in the inquest report, which
completely knocks out all the pleas advanced by Madan Lal
Kapoor (the respondent-complainant), we are of the view, that
it would be improper to make any reference thereto in deciding
the present.controversy. Reliance on the statement of Dr. Pritu D
Dhalaria would be permissible only after the same is recorded
by a court on oath, whereupon, he has to be subjected to cross-
examination. Only then, his statement would acquire credibility
for reliance. Any fact situation based on the oral testimony, by
one or the other party, cannot be the basis of a determination,' E
akin to the one in hand.
31. We are persuaded to conclude from the facts and
circumstances of the case exhaustively discussed in the
foregoing paragraphs, that all the steps delineated in the F
paragraph 23 above, can be answered in the affirmative, on
the basis of the material relied by the accused, more
particularly, the post-mortem examination report dated
28.9.1992 conducted by a Medical Board comprising of four
doctors, whose integrity has not been questioned by the G
respondent-complainant; the chemical analysis findings
.contained in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report
dated 9.2.1993 which has not been disputed by the
respondent-complainant; the inquest report of the SOM, Delhi,
dated 6. 7.1993, findings whereof have been painstakingly H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A recorded by involving the respondent-complainant; the letter of
Rajiv Kapoor (the brother of the deceased) dated 22.9.1992
addressed to Dr. Monica Thapar just four days before her
death, the contents and authenticity whereof are not subject
matter of challenge at the hands of the respondent-complainant;
B and finally, the telephone bills produced by the appellants-
accused substantiating consistent and regular contact between
the rival families, which have not been questioned. We,
therefore, have no hesitation in concluding, that the judicial
conscience of the High Court ought to have persuaded it, on
c the basis of the material examined by it, to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants-accused. We,
therefore, hereby quash the aforesaid proceedings.
32. Despite the conclusion recorded hereinabove, we are
of the view, that in the facts and circumstances of this case,
D there should have been no difficulty whatsoever for the High
Court to have exercised its judicial conscience for invoking the
power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. From the
narration of the facts recorded above, it emerges, that even
though the respondent-complainant Madan Lal Kapoor, in his
E complaint dated 6. 7.1993, adopted a clear and categoric
stance, that his daughter Dr. Monica Thapar had been
poisoned to death, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi,
the respondent-complainant ventured to suggest, that the
appellants-accused had strangulated her. The Additional
F Sessions Judge, Delhi, summoned two of the doctors who were
members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post-
mortem examination, and sought clarifications from them. He
also recorded the statement of one of the said doctors. The
Additional Sessions Judge, thereupon, ruled out the plea of
G strangulation. When the respondent-complainant himself was
uncertain about the manner in which his daughter had allegedly
died, the High Court should have viewed the matter keeping in
mind the likelihood of the hurt caused to a father who had lost
his daughter within one year of her marriage. The matter
H needed to have been evaluated, on the basis of one of the
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR 89
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
parameters laid down in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan A
Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, namely, whether the
criminal proceedings initiated by Madan Lal Kapoor (the
respondent-complainant) were actuated by malice and ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused with a view to
spite him due to some private/personal grudge. There is yet B
another reason emerging from the facts of the case which
needed to be kept in mind. Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-
complainant) had continued to represent before the SDM,
Delhi, that he would produce the mother of the deceased, who
knew the facts best of all. Despite that, the mother of the . c
deceased did not appear in the inquest proceedings to record
her statement, even though a number of opportunities were
afforded to the respondent-complainant to produce her. The
permissible inference is that he was himself not privy to the
facts. The fact that the mother of the deceased had not D
appeared to record a statement against the appellants-accused
has to have some reason/justification. Would a mother who
believes that her daughter had been poisoned/strangulated,
restrain herself from recording her statement, despite the
persuasion of her husband? Probably not. The instant factual E
position has been recorded hereinabove, not for the sake of
determination of the present controversy. In a factual situation
not as clear as the one in hand, facts such as these, could be
taken into consideration by a High Court for recording its
satisfaction, on the parameters formulated above.
F
33. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, criminal
proceedings against the appellants-accused are hereby set
aside. The order of the High Court is accordingly also set
aside, but on grounds different from those taken into
consideration by the High Court. The instant appeal, G
accordingly succeeds.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Section 482 CrPC"Sign in to search