ORDER :- This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) to impugn the order dated 07.08.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.75/1999 "Madan Lal Kapoor v. Rajiv Thapar etc.", whereby the learned ASJ has discharged the accused in the aforesaid complaint case filed by the petitioner under Sections 304B/ 498A/ 406/109/ 120B, IPC.

2. The daughter of the complainant/ petitioner herein, Monica, was married to respondent No. 1 on 30.11.1991. She was a medical doctor having MBBS degree. At the time of death and she was doing a diploma course in Gynaecology and Obstetrics at New Civil Hospital, Surat. Respondent No.1 Rajiv Thapar was then posted as Assistant Director in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Surat. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are the father, brother, sister-in-law and, mother, respectively, of the respondent No. 1. On 26.09.1992 Monica died while living with her husband at Urmil Heart Hospital, Surat On 27.09.1992, the dead body of Monica was brought by her in-laws to Delhi. The complainant came to Delhi from Chandigarh, where he resides. He called the police and the police informed the SDM. On 28.09.1992 the SDM started inquest proceedings under Section 176 of the Code. A team of four experts was appointed to conduct the post mortem of the deceased. The petitioner claims that he repeatedly made complaints to various authorities in Surat and Delhi to the effect that there were dowry demands from the respondents and that his daughter had been done to death by tile respondents on account of the said demands not being met. Eventually, on 26.07.1993 the petitioner made a complaint under Section 200 of the Code in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Magistrate recorded the statement of the petitioner and his son as C-1 and C-2. On 24.08.1995 the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summons were issued to the respondents. On 15.04.1997 the respondents moved an application before the learned Magistrate for recalling the summoning order. This application was rejected by the learned MM on 23.05.1998. The learned Magistrate supplied copies of the complaint and the statements to the respondents and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial under Section 208 of the Code. Thereafter, before hearing arguments on the charge, the Sessions Court summoned two of the doctors, who had conducted the post-mortem, and recorded the statement of one of the four doctors, namely, Dr. Banerjee. On 07.08.1999 the impugned order was passed, as aforesaid, discharging the respondents.

3. This Revision Petition came up for hearing before this Court on 19.10.2000. The same was dismissed by a summary order stating that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed on 22.02.2002 by the Supreme Court with the direction that this Court should apply its mind independently and pass a reasoned order.

4. The Revision Petition was again dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 11.08.2005. Once again, the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed with the direction to the Court to decide the case on merits. That is how the matter is now coming up for hearing.

5. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner, firstly, is that a perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the same has relied on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration (1996) 9 SCC 766 and keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in that decision, has proceeded to rely on documents and materials produced by the accused/respondents herein at the stage of considering the framing of charge/discharge of the accused. This submission of the petitioner is clearly established on a reading of the impugned order and there can hardly be any argument about the same. I may only reproduce paragraph

Click Here to Read the rest of this document