Supreme Court quashes proceedings against family members in dowry case; upholds charges against father: Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 419
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a criminal complaint against an entire family for dowry harassment stand when the allegations are vague and the complainant is not the victim herself? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a family dispute, highlighting the importance of specific allegations and the limits of using criminal proceedings for harassment. The court examined the validity of a complaint filed by the father of the alleged victim and the extent to which family members can be implicated in dowry harassment cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice Ashok Bhushan authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Nayan Chopra married Vanshika Bobal on April 15, 2012, in Noida. All the appellants are family members of Nayan Chopra. Rashmi Chopra is Nayan’s mother, Rajesh Chopra is his father, Amit Chopra is his brother, Anita Gandhi is his mother’s sister, and Kuldeep Gandhi is Anita’s husband. Nayan, his parents, and his brother lived in Hyderabad, while Anita and Kuldeep Gandhi resided in New Delhi. After the wedding, Vanshika moved to Hyderabad with Nayan. They later went to the U.S.A. on April 28, 2012. By November 2013, Nayan and Vanshika had separated. Nayan Chopra filed for divorce in Michigan, USA, on October 23, 2014.

On November 10, 2014, Vanshika’s father, Indrajeet Singh (respondent No. 2), sent a complaint to the police in Noida, alleging harassment by Rajesh Chopra and two unknown persons. This was followed by an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). After failed mediation, Indrajeet Singh filed another application on May 10, 2015, accusing all the appellants of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint included allegations of dowry demands and an incident on November 8, 2014, where Rajesh Chopra allegedly assaulted Indrajeet Singh.

The Circuit Court of Michigan granted Nayan and Vanshika a divorce on February 24, 2016, which included provisions for alimony, property settlement, and other related matters.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. filed by Indrajeet Singh was treated as a complaint and registered as Complaint No. 4967 of 2015. The Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, issued a summoning order on January 17, 2017, summoning the appellants for offences under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The appellants then filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the complaint and proceedings. The High Court initially referred the matter to a mediation center, but the mediation failed. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed the application, directing the appellants to surrender in the court below and apply for bail within two months. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following legal provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. It states,
  “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
  The explanation of the section defines cruelty as any wilful conduct that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb, or health or harassment with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: These sections prohibit the giving or taking of dowry.
• Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC: These sections deal with voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section saves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C., prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The High Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint proceedings, which were an abuse of the court process.
• The divorce granted by the Family Court of Michigan was not brought to the Magistrate’s notice before the summoning order was passed.
• The complaint does not disclose any offense under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the appellants.
• Anita Gandhi and Kuldeep Gandhi live separately and have never met Vanshika after her marriage.
• The allegations in the complaint are vague, sweeping, and general.
• The complaint was not filed by Vanshika, nor did she record a statement supporting it.
• The incident alleged on November 8, 2014, did not occur, and the allegations were false and concocted to implicate Rajesh Chopra.
• The complaint was not filed by a competent person.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Magistrate was justified in summoning the appellants, as there was sufficient ground for proceeding.
• The Magistrate is not required to record elaborate reasons for summoning an accused.
• The complaint discloses several allegations pertaining to offenses under Section 498A of the IPC and other offenses.
• Two courts have taken a particular view of the matter, and the Supreme Court should not interfere.
• Section 498A of the IPC does not require that the complaint be filed by the woman herself.
• The complaint was fully competent, and the Magistrate did not err in taking cognizance.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the complaint and proceedings.
2. Whether the complaint discloses any offense under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the appellants.
3. Whether the complaint filed by the father of the victim is maintainable under Section 498A of the IPC.
4. Whether the summoning order against all the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC is valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 139: This case discussed that at the stage of issuing process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons.
• Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2012) 11 SCC 465: Reiterated that while taking cognizance of an offence, a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order.
• Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 772: This case emphasized that the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused.
• Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424: This case stated that at the stage of cognizance and summoning, the Magistrate is only required to see if a prima facie case is made out for summoning the accused.
• K. Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452: This case highlighted the need for caution in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths.
• Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207: This case emphasized that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations.
• Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551: This case also stressed the need for specific instances of involvement in the crime.
• Vineet Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369: This case discussed the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the inherent power of the High Court.
• State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699: This case held that the High Court can quash proceedings if it is an abuse of the process of the court or if the ends of justice require it.
• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: This case laid down categories of cases where the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of the court.
• Jagdish Prasad and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 2 SCC 184: This case discussed the need for the High Court to consider the facts of the case when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Prohibits the giving or taking of dowry.
• Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Saves the inherent powers of the High Court.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]* to emphasize that the High Court has the power to quash proceedings that are an abuse of the process of the court.
• The Court cited Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors., [(2003) 4 SCC 139]* and Nupur Talwar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., [(2012) 11 SCC 465]* to reiterate that a Magistrate is not required to pass a detailed order while taking cognizance of an offence, but the summoning order must still be valid.
• The Court referred to Rakhi Mishra Vs. State of Bihar and Others, [(2017) 16 SCC 772]* and Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta, [(2015) 3 SCC 424]* to emphasize that the High Court can exercise its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in exceptional circumstances when a prima facie case is not made out against the accused.
• The Court also cited K. Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of Telangana, [(2018) 14 SCC 452]*, Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, [(2000) 5 SCC 207]* and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., [(2014) 16 SCC 551]* to highlight the need for caution in proceeding against distant relatives in matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths and that relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations.
• The Court relied on Vineet Kumar and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [(2017) 13 SCC 369]* and State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, [(1977) 2 SCC 699]* to discuss the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the inherent power of the High Court.
• The Court referred to Jagdish Prasad and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, [(2019) 2 SCC 184]* to emphasize the need for the High Court to consider the facts of the case when exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Vague and General Allegations: The Court noted that the allegations against all the appellants, except Rajesh Chopra, were general and sweeping, lacking specific details or dates. The Court observed that the complaint seemed to be a counterblast to the divorce proceedings initiated by Nayan Chopra in Michigan.
• Lack of Specific Involvement: The Court emphasized that there were no specific allegations against Anita Gandhi and Kuldeep Gandhi, who lived separately and had no direct interaction with Vanshika after her marriage.
• Timing of the Complaint: The complaint was filed after the divorce proceedings were initiated and when both Nayan and Vanshika were living separately, raising doubts about its genuineness.
• Abuse of Process: The Court found that the criminal proceedings were being used as an instrument of harassment, falling under Category 7 of the guidelines laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]*.
• Competence of Complaint: While the Court clarified that a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC can be filed by someone other than the victim, it emphasized the need for specific allegations to proceed with the case.
• Divorce Proceedings: The fact that the divorce was granted in Michigan with a settlement of property and other claims, without any mention of dowry harassment, weighed against the genuineness of the complaint.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the complaint could be valid if it disclosed a prima facie case, but rejected this because the allegations were vague and appeared to be a counterblast to the divorce proceedings. The Court emphasized that the criminal process should not be used as a tool for harassment.

The Supreme Court decided to quash the proceedings against all appellants except Rajesh Chopra for offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The summoning order against Rajesh Chopra for offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506 of the IPC was upheld. The Court reasoned that the allegations against all appellants except Rajesh Chopra were vague, general, and seemed to be a counterblast to the divorce proceedings. The Court emphasized that the criminal process should not be used as a tool for harassment.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The criminal prosecution can be allowed to proceed only when a prima facie offence is disclosed. This Court has observed that judicial process is a solemn proceeding which cannot be allowed to be converted into an instrument of oppression or harassment.”
• “There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother’s sisterand mother’s sister’s husband have been made accused, we are of the view that the High Court has committed an error in not exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.”

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals in part. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court was set aside. The criminal proceedings initiated against all the appellants except Rajesh Chopra were quashed. The summoning order against Rajesh Chopra for offences under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was upheld. The summoning order against Rajesh Chopra for offences under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC was also upheld. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment and that specific allegations are necessary to proceed against family members in dowry cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rashmi Chopra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh serves as a significant reminder that criminal proceedings, especially in matrimonial disputes, should not be used as instruments of harassment. The Court emphasized the need for specific and detailed allegations when implicating family members in dowry harassment cases. The judgment clarifies that while a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC can be filed by someone other than the victim, vague and general allegations are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. This decision reinforces the principle that the criminal justice system should be used judiciously and not for settling personal scores or for harassment.

Key Takeaways:

• Criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment.
• Specific and detailed allegations are necessary to implicate family members in dowry harassment cases.
• While a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC can be filed by someone other than the victim, it should be based on concrete evidence and not vague allegations.
• Courts should exercise caution when dealing with cases where allegations appear to be a counterblast to divorce proceedings.
• High Courts have the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings that are an abuse of the process of the court.