LexRASHMI CHOPRA versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. RASHMI CHOPRA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.594 of 2019). April 30, 2019 [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Application under – By six appellants-accused – Praying for quashing the complaint and criminal proceedings in a complaint case u/ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and s.3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Application dismissed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There were two sets of allegations in the complaint – One was with regard to offences u/ss. 323, 504 and 506 IPC and another for offences u/s. 498A IPC and ss. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Complaint u/ss. 323, 504 and 506 was made only against one appellant-accused and two unknown persons – Therefore, other appellants could not have been summoned for the offences u/ss. 323, 504 and 506 IPC – In the complaint u/s. 498A IPC r/w ss. 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act there were common general allegations against every appellant and the complaint shows that the same was filed with a view to harass the appellants and hence deserves to be quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 504, 506 and 498A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1984 – ss.3/4. Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Complaint alleging offence u/s. 498A – Locus standi of complainant – Held: There is nothing in s.498A to indicate that the complaint has to be necessarily filed by the woman who was subjected to cruelty by husband or his relatives. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 While taking cognizance of an offence, a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order. However, in a case when Magistrate issues process against a person, who is not even charged with the offence for which he is summoned, in such cases the summoning order can be assailed. [Para 12] [1143-A-B] [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1132 1132 A B C D E F G H 1133 Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports v. Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 139 : [2003] 2 SCR 621; Nupur Talwar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2012) 11 SCC 465 : [2012] 6 SCR 723 – referred to. 1.2 In the present case, there are two sets of allegations. One set of allegations of offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and second set of allegations are allegations made for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. The allegations under Sections 323, 504 and 506 has been made citing the incident dated 08.11.2014. [Paras 13 and 14][1143-C-D] 1.3 The complaint with regard to offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC has been made only against the accused/ appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 595 of 2019 and two unknown persons. Neither in the complaint nor statements made by complainant or his witnesses, there is any allegation with regard to above offences against any other appellants. There being no allegations for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC in the complaint or statement before the Magistrate, there was no question of summoning the other appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC. When the complaint does not allege any offence against other appellants, the cognizance of the complaint cannot be taken against other appellants with regard to offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. [Para 15][1144-C-D] 1.4 In so far as allegations against the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 595 of 2019, pertaining to Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC is concerned, there were specific allegations, which were also supported by the complainant and his two witnesses in the evidence, at this stage, this Court cannot pronounce as to whether any incident as alleged by the complainant happened on 08.11.2014 or alleged as offence by respondent No.2 or offence as alleged was committed by the appellant or not. Therefore, said complaint shall be proceeded with and the order dated 17.01.2017 is upheld to the limited extent i.e., summoning of the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 595 of 2019 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 IPC. [Para 31][1156--F-H; 1157-A] RASHMI CHOPRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. A B C D E F G H 1134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 6 S.C.R. 2.1 Criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment. If High Court finds that proceedings deserve to be quashed in parameters as laid down by this Court in *Bhajan Lal case, High co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.