MADAN LAL KAPOOR Vs. RAJIV THAPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 Gynecology 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 Urmii 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 the 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 Sessions 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.