# 3 S.C.R. 52 RAJIV THAPAR & ORS v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR

- **Citation:** [2013] 3 S.C.R. 52
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-01-23
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013
- **Bench:** D.K. Jain, Jagdish Singh Khehar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/3-s-c-r-52-rajiv-thapar-ors-v-madan-lal-kapoor-28938
- **Pages:** 38

## Headnote

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 accusedappellants - 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 accusedhusband 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 respondentcomplainant 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 jurisdic

## Text

_Characters 0–39,839 of 71,920. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39839 for what follows._

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 accusedappellants - 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 accusedhusband 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 respondentcomplainant 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-FH 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 respondentB
complainant ventured to suggest, that the appellantsaccused 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 respondentcomplainant 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 respondentcomplainant 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 appellantsC 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
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
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 174 of 2013.
A
B
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.
Shree Pal Singh, Rahul Singh, K. Sita Rama Rao for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Rajiv Thapar (appellant no. 1 herein) married Dr. Monica
D
E
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 echocardiography. 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 SubDivisional 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:-
H
(i)
Dr. Bharat Singh, Medical Superintendent, Civil
Hospital, Delhi.
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 1 a.
(b)
One wide mouth bottle containing liver, spleen &
kidney, Exhbt 1 b.
B
(c)
One phial containing few drops blood, Exhbt 1 c.
xxx xxx
xxx
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
C
The Exhibit nos. 1 a, 1 b and 1 c 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 SubDivisional 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 postmortem 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 echoD 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:-
F
G
H
"Conclusion
Allegation levelled by Shri Madan Lal Kapoor, father of the
deceased regarding harassment and dowry death, it
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
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
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 inlaws. 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.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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
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
doctors)
The CFSL report of the viscera reveals negative tests
for common poison.
Inquest proceedings started on 27.09.1992 and till
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
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
the PCR called on 29.09.1992 have not been turned out
by the evidence on record.
6.7.1993"
Sd/-
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi.
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
RAJIV THAPAR & ORS .. v. MADAN LAL KAPOOR
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]
is proved natural and beyond any doubt. .. "
69
9. On 29.9.1992, Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondentcomplainant), father of the deceased Dr. Monica Thapar, fried
A
B
a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Prior
thereto, on the same issue, he had filed similar complaints
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 coH
A
B
c
D
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 3 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
F
G
H
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
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,
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.
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.
Dated 6.7.93
Sd/-
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 appellantsaccused 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 respondentE
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 respondentF
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:-
"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
G
H
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
72
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 3 S.C.R.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1primarily on the ground, that Madan Lal Kapoor (the
·1 respondent- complainant) had suppressed vital material, in his
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.