REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 949 OF 2003
NEELU CHOPRA & ANR. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
BHARTI ... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Punjab
& 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 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 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 Ist Class, Gidderbaha. The
complaint was accepted in the sense that the learned
Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25.1.1994 took
the cognizance of the offences under Sections 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. The High court,
however, expressed that it would be open to the
Magistrate to exempt the personal presence of the
appellants. 3.
3. Mr. M.N.Krishnamani, learned senior counsel
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
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 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 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 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 Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over
the ornaments and 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. 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 ornaments or their
description and as to the date when the 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 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 complainant is supported by Bhagwati and
Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted
to Krishan Saroop and 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
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 AIIMS
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
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 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 which accused has committed what offence and
what is the exact role played by these appellants 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 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.
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 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
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 is apart from the fact that despite service of
notice, the complainant neither appeared before this
court nor engaged any counsel to represent her. Under
the circumstances we are of the 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.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
……………….J.
(V.S.SIRPURKAR)
………………..J.
(DEEPAK VERMA)
New Delhi,
October 7, 2009.