Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
RASHMI CHOPRA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.594 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8103/2018)
WITH
ANITA GANDHI – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.598 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8050/2018)
WITH
NAYAN CHOPRA THROUGH POA HOLDER RAJESH CHOPRA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)\
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.599 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8052/2018)
WITH
AMIT CHOPRA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.597 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8042/2018)
WITH
KULDEEP GANDHI – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.596 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8041/2018)
AND
RAJESH CHOPRA – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.595 of 2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8039/2018)
Decided on : 30-04-2019
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections ¾--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty – Dismissal of quashing petition by High Court – Complaint with regard to offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 has been made only against father-in-law and two unknown persons – Neither in complaint nor statements made by complainant or his witnesses, there is any allegation with regard to above offences against any other appellants – There being no allegations for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 in complaint or statement before Magistrate, there was no question of summoning other appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of I.P.C. – Criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed – Judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment – There is nothing on record to indicate that orders of divorce between parties was brought into notice of Magistrate when he issued process against appellants – Decree of divorce between parties shall not wipe out any criminal offence which has been committed within meaning of I.P.C. or D.P. Act – Criminal offence committed in jurisdictional court has to be examined despite divorce decree having been granted. (Paras 15, 21 and 23)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections ¾--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Cruelty – Dismissal of quashing petition by High Court – Allegations against appellants for offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act are general and sweeping – No specific incident dates or details of any incident has been mentioned in complaint – Complaint having been filed after proceeding for divorce was initiated by husband in US – Sequence of events and facts and circumstances of case leads to conclude that complaint under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act have been filed as counter blast to divorce petition proceeding – There being no specific allegation regarding any one of applicants except common general allegation against everyone, clearly indicate that application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with a view to harass applicants – Prior to filing of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. there was no complaint at any point of time by girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of applicants – Complaint as well as summoning order partly set aside. (Paras 24, 25, 31 and 32)
Facts of Case:
Dowry offence. Appellants filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in High Court praying for quashing complaint and proceedings in Complaint Case. In application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court passed an order referring the matter to mediation Centre of Allahabad High Court. Mediation having failed between parties, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was heard. Prayer of the appellants to quash the complaint and proceedings have been refused. Application was disposed of after directing that applicants may surrender in court below and make an application for bail within a period of two months. Aggrieved against judgment of High Court, these appeals have been filed.
Findings of Court:
Insofar as offence under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act is concerned, present is a case, which is covered by Category 7 as enumerated by State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal and High Court erred in refusing to exercise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, in so far as allegations against co-accused pertaining to Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC is concerned, there were specific allegations which were also supported by complainant and his two witnesses in evidence,
Result : Appeals Partly allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that Section 498A does not require the complaint to be filed only by the woman subjected to cruelty; a complaint by the father of the victim is maintainable. (!) - The High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances to quash a complaint where a prima facie case is not made out or to prevent abuse of process, as outlined in Bhajan Lal and Rakhi Mishra line of authorities. (!) (!) (!) - The Court remanded and partially allowed quashing of complaints, distinguishing between allegations under 498A/DP Act and offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, confirming that some offences may proceed while others are quashed. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Court noted that divorce decrees do not wipe out criminal offences under IPC or DP Act and that jurisdictional concerns require examination of offences in the Indian court despite foreign divorce proceedings. (!) - The complaint’s allegations under 323, 504, 506 were specific to Rajesh Chopra and a limited set of accused; other appellants’ involvement under those sections was not established. (!) - The magistrate’s summoning order can be sustained without elaborate reasoned orders for issuance of process; the standard is whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding, not for conviction. (!) (!) - The appeals involve multi-appeal consolidation arising from the same High Court order, with the Supreme Court upholding partial quashings and allowing certain allegations to proceed. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, J.
These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of Allahabad High Court dated 08.08.2018 by which the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellants praying for quashing the complaint and proceedings in Complaint Case No. 4967 of 2015 have been dismissed.
2. All the appeals having been filed against the same judgment, facts of the case are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. 594 of 2019 - Rashmi Chopra & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., in which criminal appeal, reply affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been filed. The background facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals are:-
2.1 Nayan Chopra, son of Rashmi Chopra and Rajesh Chopra got married with Vanshika Bobal, daughter of respondent No.2, Indrajeet Singh on 15.04.2012. All the appellants are family members of Nayan Chopra. Rashmi Chopra is mother, Rajesh Chopra is father, Am it Chopra is Brother and Anita Gandhi is Mother's Sister of Nayan Chopra, whereas Kuldeep Gandhi is husband of Anita Gandhi. NayanChopra with his mother, father and brother are resident of 203, Jainti Apartment, Police Station - Begumpet, Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh). Anita Gandhi and Kuldeep Gandhi are resident of Greater Kailash - I, New Delhi.
2.2 After the marriage of Nayan Chopra and Vanshika, which was performed at Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar on 15.04.2012, Vanshika went alongwith her husband at Hyderabad, the matrimonial home of Vanshika. On 28.04.2012, Vanshika and Nayan Chopra left for the U.S.A. On or about November, 2013, Vanshika and Nayan Chopra separated. On 23.10.2014, an application was filed by Nayan Chopra in the Circuit Court for the County of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan, USA, seeking divorce.
2.3 On 10.11.2014, a complaint was sent by respondent No. 2 through registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Gautam BuddhaNagar, Noida making allegations against Rajesh Chopra and two other unknown persons. An application under Section 156(3) was filed by respondent No.2. The application of the respondent No. 2 was sent by the Magistrate to Mediation Centre running under the District Legal Services Authority for counselling. After failure of counselling and mediation, an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent No. 2 dated 10.05.2015 making allegations against all the appellants under Section 4 98A and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2.4 In the complaint, allegations have been made on the basis of incident dated 08.11.2014 against Rajesh Chopra and his associates. It was alleged that Rajesh Chopra call the respondent No.2 near the Gurudwara at Sector 18, Noida to talk about the problem of Nayan Chopra and Vanshika and when respondent No.2 went for talks, he met Rajesh Chopra with two unknown persons. Respondent No. 2 furtheralleges that on his request to accept his daughter, Rajesh Chopra repeated his demand of one crore rupees and used filthy words against Vanshika, which was objected by respondent No.2, on which Rajesh Chopra and his associates became annoyed and they abused and beat the respondent No.2 and snatched his gold chain from his neck and Rs. 60,000/- from his pocket. The allegations within the meaning of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 392 of I.P.C. were made on the basis of the aforesaid incident. In the application, it was also stated that Nayan Chopra has filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in America.
2.5 On the basis of the application of divorce by Nayan Chopra, the Circuit 9th Court for the County of Kalamazoo Family Division, Michigan gave a judgment of divorce on 24.02.2016. The order of judgment of divorce was passed after hearing both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika Bobal, who were represented through attorneys. The judgment of divorce made provisions for alimony, pension benefits and retirement benefits, life insurance, property settlement and provision in lieu of dower, mutual release of claims and other provisions.
2.6 The application u
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
