Page 1

1

“  REPORTABLE”   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.__174___ OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4883 of 2008)

Rajiv Thapar & Ors. …. Appellants

Versus

Madan Lal Kapoor …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Rajiv Thapar (appellant no. 1 herein) married Dr. Monica 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.  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 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.

Page 2

2

It was suspected, that she has a hole in her heart.  Based on the aforesaid  

diagnosis, Dr. Dumaswala, another cardiologist, conducted Doppler echo-

cardiography.  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 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  (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  

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  was  subjected  to  a  post-

mortem  examination,  for  which  the  following  Medical  Board  was  

constituted:-

Page 3

3

(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.

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 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 & pulmonary hypertension.  No  definite  opinion  can  be  given  about  falciparm  Malaria,  histopathological assessment.

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

(emphasis is ours)

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  the  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, Exhbt 1a.

Page 4

4

(b) One wide mouth bottle containing liver, spleen &  kidney, Exhbt 1b.

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

xxx xxx xxx

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

The Exhibit nos. 1a, 1b and 1c gave negative tests for  common poisons.”

It is therefore apparent, that the 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”.

5.  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

Page 5

5

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.

6. 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 no. 1  herein).

(ii) Kusum  Thapar  (mother-in-law  of  the  deceased;  appellant no. 5 herein).

(iii) Sangeeta  Thapar  (wife  of  the  brother-in-law  of  the  deceased; appellant no. 4 herein).

In addition, the SDM, Delhi, recorded the statement of Dr. 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 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 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 17  th   September,  1992,  he came to    know that Monika was ill and admitted 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 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 the MS of

Page 6

6

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 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 echo-

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 SDM, Delhi, in his inquest report dated 6.7.1993, recorded the  

following conclusions:-

“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 during the course  of illness of Monika

    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  these  circumstances that Monkka was harassed by her in-laws.  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.

Page 7

7

     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..

   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, 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 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  vessels and evidence of Pulmonary Dedema.  Advise:  Echocardiography.”  

Report  of Dr.  J.C. Damaswala M.D. during the treatment  of  Monika.

“Large osteum secundum ASD Measuring 3.0 cm with  Ltd.  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 SDM office three  times but never brought his wife for recording 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 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

Page 8

8

29.09.1992  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. Monika Thapar is completely ruled out…”  

The SDM, Delhi,  also held  “…death is  proved natural  and beyond any  

doubt…”

9. 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  Incharge,  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 First Information Report,  interalia,  

under  Sections  304B  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  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, 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 called from Delhi,  and sometimes thereafter on that pretext she was admitted in

Page 9

9

some hospital of their choice, where the conspiracy could be  implemented.

11. That  on  26.9.1992  the  complainant  enquired  on  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 co-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 obtained  for taking dead body from Surat to Delhi in the 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  Incharge,  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. Monika 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  and  leading  to  her    illness  and  in  that  condition  she  was   

Page 10

10

administered  some  poisonous  matter.  The  accused  have  committed  serious  offences  under  Sections  304B/120B/498A/109 I.P.C. They be tried according to law  and convicted.

                                           Sd/- Dated 6.7.93     Madan Lal Kapoor

Complainant”

(emphasis is ours)

10. The complaint extracted above, reveals mere aspersions, based on  

suspicion.  The complaint did not express any concrete fact disclosing how  

the appellants-accused 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  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 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

Page 11

11

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 by  Ld.  Counsel  for  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 offence punishable u/s.  304B/498A/406/120B IPC.

Accordingly, I order that accused Rajiv Thapar, Ramesh  Thapar,  Sangeet  Thapar  and  Mrs.  Kusum  Thapar  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 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

Page 12

12

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 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  L.D.  Predecessor,  whereby  he  

summoned  the  accused  for  the  above  stated  offences  after  taking  

cognizance…”

12. 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,  304B  read  with  Sections  120-B  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  the  

Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Delhi,  committed  the  case  to  the  Court  of  

Sessions, as the offence under Section 304B is exclusively triable by a  

Court of Sessions.   

13. While examining the matter further, with the pointed object of either  

discharging  the accused (under  Section 227 of  the  Cr.P.C.)  or  framing  

charges against them (under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C.), the Additional  

Sessions Judge, Delhi took notice of the fact that Madan Lal Kapoor (the  

respondent-complainant)  had  not  brought  the  following

Page 13

13

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  

of the Cr.P.C. (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.

14. 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.

15. The Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi then heard detailed arguments  

on  charge.   Upon  consideration,  the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi,  

recorded detailed findings, which are being summarized hereunder:-

(i) The inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM, Delhi,  

which interalia contained the broad facts of the married

Page 14

14

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 de-

compensation, 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 the 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 the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, it

Page 15

15

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  

the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat.

Based,  interalia,  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  appellants/accused  either  under  Section  304B  of  the  Indian  Penal  

Code or  under  Section  498 of  the Indian Penal  Code.   The Additional  

Sessions Judge, Delhi, accordingly discharged the appellants/accused by  

an order dated 7.8.1999.

16. 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.  The order dated 11.8.2005 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.   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,  setting aside the order  dated 7.8.1999  

passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.  The instant order dated  

8.5.2008 is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

17. A  perusal  of  the  order  of  the  High  Court  would  reveal  that  the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Delhi,  had  primarily  relied  on  certain

Page 16

16

observations made in the judgment rendered by this Court in Satish Mehra  

Vs. Delhi Administration, (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  work-load. 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”

Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-complainant),  before the High Court,  

had relied upon the judgment in State of Orissa Vs. 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  Vs.  State  of   

Jharkhand, (2005) 12 SCC 278.  On behalf of the complainant, reliance  

was also placed on the decision in  State of Maharashtra Vs. 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.  Vs.  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

Page 17

17

on State of A.P. Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004) 6 SCC 522, to contend  

that at this stage, meticulous examination of the evidence was not called  

for.

18. As against the submission advanced on behalf of Madan Lal Kapoor  

(the respondent-complainant), the appellants/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  of  the  

Cr.P.C.  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 Vs.  Delhi  Administration (supra),  which had already been  

overruled by the judgment rendered by a larger Bench in State of Orissa  

Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi (supra).   

19. While  considering  the  contention  advanced  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants/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 of the Cr.P.C.  According to the High Court, the

Page 18

18

record of the case referred to in Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. was only such  

record, documents and articles which, on consideration by the Magistrate,  

are sent to the Court of Sessions, consequent upon passing an order of  

commitment.   The  material  and  documents  relied  upon  by  the  

appellants/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 of the Cr.P.C.  Accordingly, the submissions advanced at the  

behest  of  the  appellants/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 Sessions.

20. 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  of  the  Cr.P.C.  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 learned counsel, was  

permissible in view of the inherent  jurisdiction vested in the High Court  

under  Section 482 of  the Cr.P.C.   Section 482 of  the Cr.P.C.  is  being  

extracted hereunder:-

Page 19

19

“482. Saving of inherent power 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 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 of the Cr.P.C. can  

be exercised suo-moto to prevent the abuse of process of a court, and/or  

to secure the ends of justice.  This Court had an occasion to examine the  

matter in  State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi, (supra)  (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  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 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's case  .”

(emphasis is ours)

Recently,  this  Court  again  had  an  occasion  to  examine  the  ambit  and  

scope  of  Section  482  of  the  Cr.P.C.  in  Rukmini  Narvekar  Vs.  Vijaya  

Satardekar & Ors.,  (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  

of  the  Cr.P.C.  and  under  Article  226  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  was  

unlimited.   In the instant  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

Page 20

20

observed, that under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 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 of the Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of this case.

21. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of  

the Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice.  This is not a stage of  

evaluating  the  truthfulness  or  otherwise  of  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  

is.  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

Page 21

21

Court, prima facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations levelled,  

trial must be held.

22. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of  

the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 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  of  the  

Cr.P.C., 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 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 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

Page 22

22

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  of  the  Cr.P.C.  to  quash  such  criminal  

proceedings,  for  that  would prevent  abuse of  process of  the court,  and  

secure the ends of justice.

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs,  we  

would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for  

quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High  

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 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 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.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused,  

has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or

Page 23

23

the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by 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?

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.  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.

24. 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 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-fulfillment 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

Page 24

24

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 & 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.  The 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  echo-cardiography  

conducted  at  the  Urmil  Heart  and  Lung  Centre,  Surat,  disclosed  the  

presence of a large hole in Dr. Monica Thapar’s heart.  Even according to  

the Urmil Heart and Lung Centre, Surat, Dr. Monica Thapar had suffered a

Page 25

25

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.

25. 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  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.   

26. 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.   

27. We  are  one  with  the  aforesaid  submission.   From  the  

documents/material  relied upon by the appellants,  for  exactly  the same

Page 26

26

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.

28. It also needs to be noticed, that Madan Lal Kapoor (the respondent-

complainant)  took a summersault  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

Page 27

27

to  the  indubitable  conclusion,  that  Dr.  Monica  Thapar  had  not  died  on  

account of having been strangulated.   

29. 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  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 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.

30. Even though  the statement  of  Dr.  Pritu  Dhalaria  has  been relied  

upon by the SDM, Delhi in the inquest report, which completely knocks out

Page 28

28

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.

31. 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  the  paragraph  23  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 appellants-accused substantiating consistent and regular

Page 29

29

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  

appellants-accused.   We,  therefore,  hereby  quash  the  aforesaid  

proceedings.  

32. 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 of the  

Cr.P.C.  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 categoric 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 appellants-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

Page 30

30

the basis of one of the parameters laid down in State of Haryana & Ors.   

Vs.  Bhajan Lal  & Ors.,  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.  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  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,  

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.

33. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, criminal proceedings against  

the appellants-accused are hereby set aside.  The order of the High Court  

is accordingly also set aside, but on grounds different from those taken into

Page 31

31

consideration  by  the  High  Court.   The  instant  appeal,  accordingly  

succeeds.

…………………………….J. (D.K. Jain)

…………………………….J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

New Delhi; January 23, 2013.