REPORTABLE

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL  APPEAL No. 949 OF 2003                      

NEELU CHOPRA & ANR. ...   Appellant(s)

                     Versus

BHARTI ...  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

    V.S. SIRPURKAR,J.  

1.   This appeal is against the judgment of the Punjab  

& Haryana High Court whereby the petition for quashing  

the criminal proceedings against the appellants pending  

before the trial court has been dismissed.

2.   The factual scenario is that the appellant Neelu  

Chopra and Krishan Sarup Chopra are  husband and wife  

and the respondent Bharti is their  daughter-in-law.  

Bharti was married in the year 1984 to one Rajesh, the  

son of present appellants. However,  as  per  the  

version  of  the  respondent  the  married  life  was  not  

smooth on account of unreasonable demand of dowry and  

the misbehaviour on the part of husband Rajesh and his  

parents,  the  appellants  herein.   Ultimately,  on  

24.12.1993  a  complaint  came  to  be  filed  before  the

Judicial    Magistrate  Ist  Class,  Gidderbaha.  The  

complaint  was accepted in the sense that the learned  

Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 25.1.1994 took  

the cognizance  of the offences under Sections 406,  

498A read with 114 IPC.  This order of cognizance was  

challenged by the accused persons. Rajesh is reported  

to have expired on 6.1.2006.  The High Court, however,  

did not agree to quash the complaint and took a view  

that the complaint did show the material sufficient to  

proceed  against  the  appellants.   The  High  court,  

however,  expressed  that  it  would  be  open  to  the  

Magistrate  to  exempt  the  personal  presence  of  the  

appellants.  3.

3.  Mr.  M.N.Krishnamani,  learned  senior  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellants  painstakingly  took  us  

though the original complaint as also the allied facts  

relevant  for  the  determination  of  the  present  

controversy.  It was pointed out by the learned senior  

counsel that the marriage had taken place way back in  

the  year  1984  while  the  complaint  was  filed  on  

24.12.1993 i.e. after about nine years of the marriage.  

It was further pointed out that two daughters were born  

to the complainant and presently the complainant along  

with his daughter is residing in the same house but on  

the different floor. Learned senior counsel points out

that  those daughters are now 22 and 19 years of age.  

He further points out that presently the age of the

first appellant is 76 years while her husband is of 80  

years.  Learned senior counsel, however, besides these  

facts, laid great stress on the fact that the complaint  

is  absolutely  vague  and  silent  as  regards  the  

allegation against the present appellants.   

4.  We have seen the complaint very carefully.  From a  

bare reading of the complaint it is apparent that the  

problem  started  barely  after  six  months  of  the  

marriage.   In  paragraph  3  of  the  complaint,  it  is  

stated   that  all  the  accused  came  to  complainant's  

parents house at Gidderbaha and asked her parents to  

give the complainant more gold and other articles as  

dowry otherwise they would leave the complainant there  

and Rajesh would be married second time.  In paragraph  

4, the complaint is  against Rajesh in the sense that  

the accused Rajesh asked the complainant to hand over  

the ornaments and clothes to his parents lest they are  

lost  in  the  way.   On  reaching  to  Delhi  when  the  

ornament were asked back by the complainant, they were  

not returned back.  When we see the complaint as a  

whole it is basically against the accused Rajesh.  All

the  allegations  are  against  Rajesh.   There  is  

undoubtedly some reference to the present appellants,  

but what strikes us is that there are no particulars  

given as to date on which the ornaments were handed  

over, as  to  the exact number  of ornaments or their

description and as to the date when the ornaments were  

asked back and were refused. Even the weight of the  

ornaments is not mentioned in the  complaint and  it is  

a general and  vague complaint that the ornaments were  

sometime given in the custody of the appellants and  

they were not returned. What strikes us more is that  

even  in   paragraph  10   of  the  complaint  where  the  

complainant says that  she asked for her clothes and  

ornaments  which  were  given  to  the  accused  and  they  

refused to give these back, the date is significantly  

absent.  It seems from the order taking cognizance that  

the learned Magistrate has mentioned about the version  

of  the  complainant  is  supported  by  Bhagwati  and  

Dharampal to the fact that the ornaments were entrusted  

to  Krishan  Saroop  and  Rajesh  while  clothes  were  

entrusted to Rakhi and they refused to hand over the  

same.  Even their statements could not be better than  

the vague complaint.  Even about the clothes, the date

on which they were handed over to Rakhee who happens to  

be the daughter of the present appellants and the other  

details are very significantly absent.  It was also the  

version  of  the  complainant  that  she  was  beaten  in  

support of which she has filed a certificate from AIIMS  

hospital, New Delhi.  However, in the complaint, it is  

not seen as to on which date  she was beaten and by  

whom.  It is significant to note that the matter

against the Rakhee, the 4th original accused has already  

been dropped as she was in fact not even the resident  

of the same house.   

5. In  order  to  lodge  a  proper  compliant,  mere  

mention  of  the  sections  and  the  language  of  those  

sections is not be all and end of the matter.  What is  

required to be brought to the notice of the court is  

the particulars of the offence committed by each and  

every accused and the role played by each and every  

accused in committing of that offence.  When we see the  

complaint, the complaint is sadly vague.  It does not  

show as to which accused has committed what offence and  

what is the exact role played by these appellants in  

the  commission  of  offence.   There  could  be  said  

something against Rajesh, as the allegations are made

against him more precisely but he  is no more and has  

already expired.  Under such circumstances, it would be  

an abuse of process of law to allow the prosecution to  

continue  against  the  aged  parents  of  Rajesh,  the  

present appellants herein on the basis of vague and  

general  complaint  which  is  silent  about  the  precise  

acts of the appellants.   

6.   The  High  Court  has  merely  mentioned  that  the  

allegation in the complaint are of retaining jewellery  

articles  in  possession  of  the  husband  and  the  

petitioners.  Now   if   the   articles  were  in  the

possession of the husband, there is no question of the  

present  appellants  being  in  possession  of  the  

jewellery.  This is apart from the fact that it has  

already been  expressed by us that there is no mention  

of the date on which  the said ornaments, if any,  were  

entrusted to the appellants or even the date when they  

were demanded back and were refused to be given back by  

the appellants or any one of them.  Insofar as the  

offence under Section 498A IPC is concerned, we do not  

find any material or allegation worth the name against  

the present appellants.  All the allegations appear to  

be  against the Rajesh.  

7.  This is apart from the fact that despite service of  

notice, the complainant neither appeared before this  

court nor engaged any counsel to represent her.  Under  

the  circumstances  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  

judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. It  

is, accordingly, set aside and the order of the learned  

Magistrate  taking   cognizance  is  quashed.   The  

complaint is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.   

8.  The appeal is allowed accordingly.

              ...................J.                                  (V.S.SIRPURKAR)

             ....................J.                          (DEEPAK VERMA)   

New Delhi, October 7, 2009.