NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR. versus BHARTI

Citation: [2009] 14 S.C.R. 1074 · Decided: 07-10-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 14 S.C.R. 1074 
A 
NEELU CHOPRA AND ANR. 
I.: 
v. 
BHARTI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 949 of 2003) 
B 
OCTOBER 7, 2009 
[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. 
+ 
F 
The order of cognizance was challenged by the accused 
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 
HELD: 1. From a bare reading of the complaint, it is 
y 
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 
0 
to the date when the ornaments were asked back and 
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 jewelle

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.