LexRAJIV THAPAR & ORS. versus MADAN LAL KAPOOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 3 S.C.R. 52 RAJIV THAPAR & ORS. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013) JANUARY 23, 2013 [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. The respondent filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi alleging unnatural death of F 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 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.