Rajiv Thapar And Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

J.S Khehar, J.— Leave granted. Rajiv Thapar (Appellant 1 herein) married Dr Monica Kapoor on 30-11-1991. After her marriage, Dr Monica Thapar got admission in a postgraduate diploma course in Gynaecology (DGO) at Medical College, Surat in June 1992. 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.

2. On 16-9-1992, while the husband and wife were living at Surat, Dr Monica Thapar fell 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 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 had a hole in her heart. Based on the aforesaid diagnosis, Dr Dumaswala, another cardiologist, conducted Doppler echocardiography. The said echocardiography 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 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 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 (the respondent complainant herein) were 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 body had turned blue. On the aforesaid complaint, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi, in exercise of the powers vested in him under Section 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), initiated inquest proceedings. In the first instance, the body of the deceased was subjected to a post-mortem examination, for which the following Medical Board was constituted:

(i) Dr Bharat Singh, Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Delhi.

(ii) Dr L.T Ramani, Chief Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Delhi.

(iii) Dr Beena Malhotra, Professor, Pathology, G.B Pant Hospital, New Delhi.

(iv) Dr Amit Banerjee, Professor, Cardiothoracic Surgery, G.B Pant Hospital, New Delhi.

5. The Medical Board came to the conclusion that Dr Monica Thapar had died of cardiac decompensation. The final opinion of the Medical Board was recorded in a report dated 28-9-1992, in the following words:

“Opinion.—In view of the clinical reports submitted and post-mortem findings observed, the Board of Doctors is of the opinion that death is consequent to cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect and pulmonary hypertension. No definite opinion can be given about falciparum malaria, histopathological assessment.

Viscera is preserved for chemical analysis as desired by the SDM. Time since death is about 48 hours and is consistent with the history.”

(emphasis is ours)

6. During the post-mortem examination, samples from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood of the deceased's body were taken. These samples were sent for chemical examination to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi. The report of the forensic laboratory dated 9-2-1993 recorded the following conclusions:

“Specification of the article contained in the parcel

1. Parcel contained:

(a) One wide mouth bottle containing stomach, intestine with contents, Exhibit 1a.

(b) One wide mouth bottle containing liver, spleen and kidney, Exhibit 1b.

(c) One phial containing few drops blood, Exhibit 1c.

Results of Analysis

Exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c gave negative tests for common poisons.”

It is therefore apparent, that Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi having analysed the samples from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood, concluded that the same did not contain any “common poison”.

7. Insofar as the inquest proceedings initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the SDM, Delhi”) are concerned, it would be relevant to mention that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant herein), the father of the deceased, in the first instance, refused to record any statement before the SDM, Delhi, on the ground that he would record his statement only after the receipt of the post-mortem report. Even on the receipt of the post-mortem report, the said Madan Lal Kapoor and even his son, Rajiv Kapoor, refused to record their statements before the SDM, 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 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 SDM, Delhi to record their statements. Madan Lal Kapoor had sought time thrice from the SDM, Delhi to get the statement of his wife recorded. Madan Lal Kapoor, father of the deceased, however, eventually recorded his statement before the SDM, Delhi, even though the mother of the deceased had not appeared before the Magistrate to record her statement.

8. The SDM, Delhi, during the course of inquest proceedings, recorded the statements of the following accused persons:

(i) Rajiv Thapar (husband of the deceased, Appellant 1 herein).

(ii) Kusum Thapar (mother-in-law of the deceased, Appellant 5 herein).

(iii) Sangeeta Thapar (wife of the brother-in-law of the deceased, Appellant 4 herein).

In addition, the SDM, Delhi, recorded the statement of Dr Pritu Dhalaria (a colleague of the deceased at Medical College, Surat).

9. 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 on the record of the case, reference thereto in the inquest report is being extracted hereunder:

“Statement of Mr Pritu Dhalaria

Shri Pritu Dhalaria stated that Monica Thapar was known to him from the date she got admission in the Medical College in June 1992. And he regards her as his elder sister. He further stated that both Monica and Rajiv were happy and living a happy married life. On 17-9-1992 he came to know that Monica was ill and admitted in Mahavir Hospital. In the evening of 17-9-1992, when he met Monica he came to know that she was suffering from malaria. And on 24-9-1992 he came to know that she was admitted in Urmil Heart Hospital. He further stated that after echocardiography the doctor declared that Monica was suffering from ASD (large hole in heart) and pulmonary hypertension. He stated that on 26-9-1992, at about 2.00-2.15 p.m, Monica's situation became serious. And in spite of all attempts of doctors, she got heart attack and died at 3.30 p.m He also stated that the MS of Civil Hospital, Surat, Dr Khanna was present along with the other doctors at that time.”

(emphasis is ours)

The statement of Dr Pritu Dhalaria fully coincides with the version expressed by the appellant-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 echocardiography. She died of a massive heart attack on 26-9-1992. At the time of her death, Dr Khanna and other doctors of Civil Hospital, Surat, were present.

10. The SDM, Delhi, in his inquest report dated 6-7-1993, recorded the following conclusions:

“Conclusion

From the allegation levelled by Shri Madan Lal Kapoor, father of the deceased regarding harassment and dowry death, it appears that the allegations 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 the letters written by Shri Madan Lal Kapoor and Rajiv Kapoor. Perusal of the letters shows that both the families enjoyed a normal happy relationship and not an abnormal and strained relation till the death of Monica.

Shri Rajiv Thapar has produced copy of telephone bill of residential phone which shows that telephone calls were made to Madan Lal, Phone No. 574390 at Mohali, Chandigarh on 17-9-1992, 21-9-1992, 24-9-1992 and 25-9-1992 during the course of illness of Monica.

Shri Rajiv Kapoor, the brother of the deceased was well aware of the situation of Monica as per his letter dated 22-9-1992 and at that time the families were enjoying a very good relationship. So it is not possible in these circumstances that Monica was harassed by her in-laws. A few lines are as under:

‘How are you now? I hope by now you would have recovered from malaria. We should have faith in God. Please give top priority to your health.

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 has been promoted to the rank of Squadron Leader….’

The brother is not likely to praise the family of his sister's in-laws in case his sister is being harassed for dowry.

Statement of Shri Pritu, colleague of Mrs Monica, also shows that Monica and Rajiv enjoyed a very happy and cordial relationship, which also shows that allegations of harassment do not appear to be correct. According to the statements given before me Monica stayed with her in-laws in Delhi only for 4-5 days. Hence the charge of 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 Shri S.K Pathi, MD, Radiologist during the treatment of Monica:

‘Mild cardiac enlargement with dilated pulmonary vessels and evidence of pulmonary oedema. Advise: echocardiography.’

Report of Dr J.C Damaswala, MD during the treatment of Monica:

‘Large ostium secundum ASD measuring 3.0 cm with left to right shunt on colour flow and conventional Doppler.’

Death certificate issued by Urmil Heart and Lung Centre:

Cause of death.—Cardiorespiratory arrest due to malaria, ASD C, pulmonary hypertension.

The post-mortem of the dead body reveals that death is due to cardiac decompensation 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 27-9-1992 and till now the mother of the deceased has not come forward to give her statement. Father of the deceased visited the SDM office three times but never brought his wife for recording the statement. Now there is no point in waiting 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 CrPC may be closed as foul play in the death of Smt Monica Thapar is completely ruled out and the allegations made in the PCR called on 29-9-1992 have not been turned out by the evidence on record.

sd/-

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi.

6-7-1993”

A perusal of the inquest report reveals that the SDM, Delhi, concluded that “… foul play in the death of Smt Monica Thapar is completely ruled out….” The SDM, Delhi, also held that “… death is proved natural and beyond any doubt….”

11. On 29-9-1992 Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), father of the deceased Dr Monica Thapar, filed 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 In-charge, Umra Police Station, Athwa Lines, Surat; Deputy Commissioner, Athwa and 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 first information report, inter alia, under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

12. 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 Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) is being extracted hereunder:

“10. That in the second week of September 1992, Accused 1 Rajiv Thapar called his mother from Delhi on the false pretext that Monica 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 Monica in some mysterious manner and on that pretext the mother of Rajiv Thapar, Accused 1 was 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 telephone from Accused 2 about the welfare of his daughter but now she was quite alright and there was nothing to worry about her. The complainant enquired from him about the details of her illness and hospital where she was admitted, but Accused 2 did not disclose. As the voice of Mr Thapar, Accused 2 was somewhat incoherent on the phone, the complainant suspected something wrong, when the complainant told him that he along with his wife was going to Surat, Accused 2 told him that there was no need of going and everything was alright, but when the complainant told him in clear terms that he apprehended something wrong regarding the illness of his daughter, on which Accused 2 told the complainant on phone that Monica had expired.

12. That Accused 2 in conspiracy with his co-accused did not disclose the kind of illness, or 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 Monica 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 Monica was brought to Delhi under mysterious circumstances, no permission was obtained for taking the dead body from Surat to Delhi in the train.

14. That the complainant and his wife reached Delhi and saw that 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 had moved hell and earth in the matter. He has given complaint to the Police Commissioner, Surat; Deputy Commissioner, Athwa; Crime Women Cell, South Moti Bagh, Nanakpura, New Delhi; Police Officer In-charge, 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.

16. That the death of Mrs Monica took place within a year 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 leading to her illness and in that condition she was administered some poisonous matter. The accused have committed serious offences under Sections 304-B/120-B/498-A/109 IPC. They be tried according to law and convicted.

sd/- Dated 6-7-1993 Madan Lal Kapoor Complainant” (emphasis is ours)

The complaint extracted above reveals mere aspersions based on suspicion. The complaint did not express any concrete fact disclosing how the appellant-accused were responsible for having taken his daughter's life. In fact, the narration of facts hereafter reveals the shifting stance of the father of the deceased, about the cause of his daughter's death.

13. On 24-5-1995 Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent 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 respondent 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-in-law and he therefore rang up 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, he 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 Monica 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 his daughter had 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 the 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 suspected that his daughter had been admitted because his daughter had not brought sufficient dowry according to the status and had also failed to fulfil the demands of the abovenamed accused persons of bringing dowry and Maruti car and cash.

I have carefully considered the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the complainant. I have also carefully gone 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 committing the offence punishable under Sections 304-B/498-A/406/120-B IPC.

Accordingly, I order that accused Rajiv Thapar, Ramesh Thapar, Sangeeta Thapar and Mrs Kusum Thapar be summoned for 19-12-1995 on filing of PF.”

14. The appellants assailed the aforesaid summoning order dated 24-8-1995, by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”). The challenge raised was primarily on the ground that Madan Lal Kapoor (the 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 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).

15. Immediately on the 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 the opinion that at this stage, there is no ground to review or recall the order dated 24-8-1995 passed by my learned predecessor, whereby he summoned the accused for the abovestated offences after taking cognizance….” Thereupon, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, recorded preliminary evidence. Based thereon, and having formed an opinion that there was sufficient material to proceed against the accused under Sections 498, 496, 304-B read with Section 120-B of the Penal Code, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, committed the case to the Court of Session, as the offence under Section 304-B is exclusively triable by a Court of Session.

16. While examining the matter further, with the pointed object of either discharging the accused (under Section 227 CrPC) or framing charges against them (under Section 228 CrPC), the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi took notice of the fact that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) had not brought the following record/material/documents to the notice of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi:

(i) The post-mortem report dated 28-9-1992.

(ii) The inquest report dated 6-4-1993.

(iii) The correspondence made by the respondent and his son.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi also felt that the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, had not fully complied with the provisions of Section 202 CrPC (requiring him to enquire into the case himself). Therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi examined the allegations made in the complaint in conjunction with all of the aforesaid material.

17. Since the learned counsel representing Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) had raised an additional plea (before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi) that the deceased was also suspected of having been strangulated to death, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi summoned Dr L.T Ramani and Dr Amit Banerjee (who were members of the Medical Board, which had conducted the post-mortem examination). The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, sought clarifications on the allegations of strangulation from the two doctors. The court also recorded the statement of Dr Amit Banerjee.

18. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi then heard detailed arguments on charge. Upon consideration, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, recorded detailed findings, which are being summarised hereunder:

(i) The inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM, Delhi, which inter alia contained the broad facts of the married life of the deceased, were inconsistent with the theory of harassment extracted in the complaint.

(ii) The accused Rajiv Thapar, husband of Dr Monica Thapar (deceased) had been seeking medical advice, and had been getting the deceased's medical treatment at Surat, whereupon it came to be discovered that she had a large hole in her heart.

(iii) The Medical Board which conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, confirmed the conclusion certified by Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, that her death occurred because of cardiac decompensation, and that Dr Monica Thapar had died a natural death.

(iv) The plea of strangulation raised on behalf of the complainant was held to be unsubstantiated consequent upon the clarification rendered by Dr L.T Ramani and Dr Amit Banerjee.

(v) The post-mortem report and the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report, which recorded a negative opinion on poisoning, were taken into consideration to conclude that the death of Dr Monica Thapar was not due to poisoning.

(vi) The statement made by Dr Pritu Dhalaria, a colleague of the deceased at Medical College, Surat, referred to in the inquest proceedings (relevant portion extracted above) was relied upon to disbelieve the theory of foul play in the death of Dr Monica Thapar.

(vii) Based on the facts recorded in the inquest report, as also in the statement of Dr Pritu Dhalaria, that Dr Monica Thapar had died after her admission and treatment in Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, it was deduced that Rajiv Thapar, the husband of the deceased could have neither strangulated nor poisoned the deceased, while she was admitted for treatment at Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat.

Based, inter alia, on the aforesaid evaluation of the complaint filed by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the appellant-accused either under Section 304-B of the Penal Code or under Section 498 of the Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, accordingly discharged the appellant-accused by an order dated 7-8-1999.

19. Dissatisfied with the order dated 7-8-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) filed a criminal revision petition (bearing No. 42 of 2000) in the High Court. The aforesaid criminal revision petition was dismissed in default on 11-8-2005 Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2000. The order dated 11-8-2005 Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2000 was assailed through a special leave petition [bearing No. SLP (Crl.) No. 3303 of 2006] before this Court. The aforesaid special leave petition was allowed by this Court on 31-8-2007 (2007) 7 SCC 623. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for adjudication on merits. It is thereupon that the High Court passed the impugned order dated 8-5-2008 (2008) 150 DLT 744, (2008) 105 DRJ 531, setting aside the order dated 7-8-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The said order dated 8-5-2008 (2008) 150 DLT 744, (2008) 105 DRJ 531 is the subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal.

20. A perusal of the order of the High Court would reveal that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, had primarily relied on certain observations made in the judgment rendered by this Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. (1996) 9 SCC 766:

“15. But when the Judge is fairly certain that there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date. We are mindful that most of the Sessions Courts in India are under heavy pressure of workload. If the Sessions Judge is almost certain that the trial would only be an exercise in futility or a sheer waste of time it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself.”

21. Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), before the High Court, had relied upon the judgment in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 to contend that the judgment relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi having been overruled, had resulted in an erroneous conclusion. For the same proposition, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar Tekriwal v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 12 SCC 278. On behalf of the complainant, reliance was also placed on the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 to contend that only the material placed on record by the prosecution could be gone into at the time of framing charges. And if, on the basis of the said material, the commission of the alleged offence was prima facie made out, the charge(s) was/were to be framed. At the stage of framing of charges, it was submitted, that the requirement was not to determine the sufficiency (or otherwise) of evidence to record a conviction. For this, reliance was placed on State of M.P v. Mohanlal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 wherein this Court had concluded that the requirement was a satisfaction that a prima facie case was made out. On behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor, reliance was also placed on State of A.P v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522 to contend that at this stage meticulous examination of the evidence was not called for.

22. As against the submissions advanced on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), the appellant-accused contended that the Court was justified in considering the material on the record of the case, and on the basis thereof, to arrive at a just and reasonable conclusion. In this behalf, it was averred that the post-mortem report, the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, the inquest proceedings recorded by the SDM, Delhi, and the letters addressed by the family members of the complainant (duly noticed in the inquest proceedings), were a part of the record of the case, and as such, were to be taken into consideration while passing the orders contemplated under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC.

23. The submission advanced on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) before the High Court was accepted. The High Court arrived at the conclusion that the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi had erroneously placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Admn. (1996) 9 SCC 766 which had already been overruled by the judgment rendered by a larger Bench in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568. While considering the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant-accused, the High Court concluded that the material/documents/record which the complainant was placing reliance on, did not fall within the ambit and scope of the term “record of the case” contained in Section 227 CrPC. According to the High Court, the record of the case referred to in Section 227 CrPC was only such record, documents and articles which, on consideration by the Magistrate, are sent to the Court of Session, consequent upon passing an order of commitment. The material and documents relied upon by the appellant-accused in the present controversy would, therefore, not fall within the zone of consideration at the hands of the Court of Session under Section 227 CrPC. Accordingly, the submissions advanced at the behest of the appellant-accused were declined. For the aforesaid reasons, the High Court accepted the criminal revision petition filed by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant). The order dated 7-8-1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi was accordingly quashed. The parties were accordingly directed to participate in the further proceedings before the Court of Session.

24. We have considered the submissions advanced at the behest of the rival parties. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court had before it an exhaustive and detailed order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, it ought to, therefore, have examined the controversy, while keeping in mind the inherent power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC specially because the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 7-8-1999 had concluded, on the basis of the material relied upon by the accused, that no case was made out against the accused. This, according to the learned counsel, was permissible in view of the inherent jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

25. Section 482 CrPC is being extracted hereunder:

“482. Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The discretion vested in a High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised suo motu to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or to secure the ends of justice.

26. This Court had an occasion to examine the matter in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2005) 1 SCC 568 (incidentally the said judgment was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant), wherein it was held thus:

“29. Regarding the argument of the accused having to face the trial despite being in a position to produce material of unimpeachable character of sterling quality, the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India is unlimited whereunder in the interests of justice the High Court can make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice within the parameters laid down in Bhajan Lal case 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.”

(emphasis supplied)

27. Recently, this Court again had an occasion to examine the ambit and scope of Section 482 CrPC in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar (2008) 14 SCC 1 wherein in the main order it was observed that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was unlimited. In the said judgment, this Court held that the High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a concurring separate order passed in the same case, it was additionally observed that under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court was free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused, to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained. The aforesaid parameters shall be kept in mind while we examine whether the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC in the facts and circumstances of this case.

28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is an endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring the legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has levelled allegations bringing out all ingredients of the charge(s) levelled, and have placed material before the Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled, trial must be held.

29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, 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 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, 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 and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC 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 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 sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the 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 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 CrPC to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 CrPC:

30.1 Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

30.2 Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the 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?

30.3 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 the prosecution/complainant?

30.4 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?

30.5 If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. 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 that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.

31. The complaint made by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) proceeds on the assumption that his daughter Dr Monica Thapar was administered poison. The said assumption was based on the fact that the respondent complainant (as also the members of his family), found that the body of their daughter had turned blue when they laid their eyes on it for the first time after her death. The motive disclosed in the complaint is non-cordiality of relations between the deceased Dr Monica Thapar, and the family members of her husband (the appellants herein) on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demands. Insofar as the allegation that the appellants had poisoned Dr Monica Thapar to death is concerned, the appellants have placed reliance on the post-mortem report dated 28-9-1992, chemical analysis findings recorded in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory's report dated 9-2-1993, the inquest report dated 6-7-1993, and the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated 7-8-1999. It is clear that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) was associated with the investigative process from the very moment the body of Dr Monica Thapar arrived at Delhi. It was at his instance that the post-mortem examination was conducted. The body of the deceased, after the same was subjected to the post-mortem examination, was handed over jointly to Madan Lal Kapoor (the father of the deceased) and to Rajiv Thapar (the husband of the deceased). The cremation of the body of Dr Monica Thapar was carried out jointly by the two families. A high level Medical Board, constituted for conducting the post-mortem examination, in unequivocal terms returned a finding that “cardiac decompensation due to enlarged atrial septal defect and pulmonary hypertension” was the cause of Dr Monica Thapar's death. It would be pertinent to notice that samples from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney and blood of the deceased's body were taken for forensic examination in order to verify the allegation of poisoning levelled by Madan Lal Kapoor. Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, in its report dated 9-2-1993 negatived the aforesaid allegation by concluding, that the samples did not indicate the presence of any common poisoning substance. Relying on the inquest report dated 6-7-1993 rendered by the SDM, Delhi, it was sought to be asserted that echocardiography conducted at Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, disclosed the presence of a large hole in Dr Monica Thapar's heart. Even according to Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr Monica Thapar had suffered a massive heart attack, and had died at the said hospital on 26-9-1992. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid material is evidence of sterling quality which was sufficient to demonstrate that there was not the remotest possibility that the trial against the appellants would lead to their conviction.

32. The evidence relied upon by the appellant has not been contested or refuted by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), even though he was aware of the same when he filed the complaint. During the course of the proceeding before the committing Magistrate, and even before the Sessions Court and the High Court, the appellants had placed emphatic reliance on the material referred to above. The same remained unrefuted in the pleadings filed on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor. During the course of hearing at the stages referred to above, the veracity of the documents/material referred to above was not contested. The aforesaid position has subsisted even before this Court. It was accordingly submitted on behalf of the appellants that even if trial is allowed to proceed against the appellants, at the culmination thereof, it would be impossible to return a finding of guilt against any of the accused.

33. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the material in the nature of 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.

34. We are one with the aforesaid submission. From the documents/material relied upon by the appellants, for exactly the same reasons as have been projected on behalf of the appellants, we are 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, in our view, is not a sufficient basis to infer that she had been poisoned to death. In fact material relied upon by the appellants is sufficient to condemn the factual basis of the accusation as false.

35. It also needs to be noticed that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) took a somersault before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi 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 determine the veracity of the allegation of strangulation as the cause of her death, the 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 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 caused by strangulation. We are therefore satisfied to affirm that the death of Dr Monica Thapar has not been shown to have been caused by strangulation. On an overall examination of the matter, we have no other option, specially in the absence of any submission to the contrary, but to conclude that the material relied upon by the appellants would lead to the indubitable conclusion that Dr Monica Thapar had not died on account of having been strangulated.

36. We shall now advert to the allegation made in the complaint by Madan Lal Kapoor that there was non-cordiality of relations between the deceased Dr Monica Thapar and her in-laws. Telephone bills demonstrate that phone calls were regularly made from the residence of Rajiv Thapar (Appellant 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 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 Rajiv Kapoor (the brother of the deceased, and the son of Madan Lal Kapoor, the respondent complainant). In a letter dated 22-9-1992, just 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 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, in our opinion, would undoubtedly and inevitably result in concluding that the relationship between the two families was cordial and affectionate. Clearly contrary to what has been alleged in the complaint.

37. Even though the statement of Dr Pritu Dhalaria has been relied upon by the SDM, Delhi in the inquest report, which completely knocks out all the pleas advanced by Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant), we are of the view that it would be improper to make any reference thereto in deciding the present controversy. Reliance on the statement of Dr Pritu Dhalaria would be permissible only after the same is recorded by a court on oath, whereupon, he has to be subjected to cross-examination. Only then his statement would acquire credibility for reliance. Any fact situation based on the oral testimony, by one or the other party, cannot be the basis of a determination, akin to the one in hand.

38. We are persuaded to conclude from the facts and circumstances of the case exhaustively discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, that all the steps delineated in paras 30.1 to 30.4, 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 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 report of the SDM, 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 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 appellant-accused substantiating consistent and regular contact between the rival families, which have not been questioned. We, therefore, have 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 appellant-accused. We, therefore, hereby quash the aforesaid proceedings.

39. Despite the conclusion recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, there should have been no difficulty whatsoever for the High Court to have exercised its judicial conscience for invoking the power vested in it under Section 482 CrPC. From the narration of the facts recorded above, it emerges that even though the respondent complainant Madan Lal Kapoor in his complaint dated 6-7-1993 adopted a clear and categorical stance, that his daughter Dr Monica Thapar had been poisoned to death, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, the respondent complainant ventured to suggest that the appellant-accused 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 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 respondent complainant himself was uncertain about the manner in which his daughter had allegedly died, the High Court 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 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, namely, 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.

40. There is yet another reason emerging from the facts of the case which needed to be kept in mind. Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent complainant) had continued to represent before the SDM, 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 record her statement, even though a number of opportunities were afforded to the respondent complainant 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 a statement against the appellant-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, despite the persuasion of her husband? Probably not. The instant factual position has been recorded hereinabove not for the sake of determination of the present controversy. In a factual 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.

41. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused are hereby set aside. The order (2008) 150 DLT 744, (2008) 105 DRJ 531 of the High Court is accordingly also set aside, but on grounds different from those taken into consideration by the High Court. The instant appeal accordingly succeeds.