Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO. 128  OF 2011

Ram Saran Varshney and others … Appellants versus

State of Uttar Pradesh and another               … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

1. The challenge raised in the instant appeal is, as against  the  order  dated  7.5.2008,  namely,  the  charge  sheet wherein the appellants before this Court have been proceeded against under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, as also, under Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  A further challenge has also been raised, as against the order dated  12.05.2008  (passed  by  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Lucknow), taking cognizance of the charge sheet, filed against the appellants. 2. It is essential to narrate the facts leading up to the  controversy.   In  this  behalf,  it  would  be  relevant  to mention, that Mukul Gupta - appellant no.3 was married to Sonia Gupta - respondent no.2 on 11.06.1997.   Ram Saran Varshney - appellant  no.1  and  Saroj  Varshney  -  appellant  no.2  are  the

1

Page 2

father-in-law  and  mother-in-law  respectively  of  respondent no.2.  Appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of respondent no.2. 3. A  girl  child  was  born  to  appellant  no.3  and respondent no.2 from their wedlock on 9.12.2000.  Even though it is alleged, that appellant no.3 and respondent no.2 lived in the matrimonial home at Pune till 30.10.2001, it is the case of the appellants before this Court, that respondent no.2 left her matrimonial home on 30.10.2001.  It is also alleged, that on 15.03.2002,  respondent  no.2  forcibly  attempted  to  enter  the house  of  Ram  Saran  Varshney  and  Saroj  Varshney  (i.e.  her parents-in-law) at Lucknow.  Consequently, appellant nos. 1 and 2 initiated civil proceedings, to restrain respondent no.2 from entering  their  house.   By  an  order  dated  15.03.2002,  the District Judge, Lucknow granted the necessary restraint order, in favour of appellant nos. 1 and 2.  In sum and   substance, respondent no.2 was restrained from forcibly entering into the house allotted to appellant no.1, namely, C-79, Butlar Palace Colony, PS Hazratganj, Lucknow, without the permission of the Court. 4. It seems, that the relationship between the parties were not amicable.  It is therefore, that appellant no.3 - Mukul Gupta filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage  Act,  1956,  seeking  divorce  from  respondent  no.2  - Sonia  Gupta.   During  the  course  of  hearing,  it  was  the

2

Page 3

contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that as a retaliatory act  to the divorce petition filed by appellant no.3 - Mukul Gupta, respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta registered a first information report bearing Case Crime No. 326  of  2002  at  Police  Station  Shiv  Kutti,  Allahabad,  under Sections  498A  and  506  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  read  with Sections 3/4  of the Dowry Prohibition Act.  It was alleged by respondent no.2 in the above first information report, that the appellants were harassing her.  Investigation in the matter, consequent  upon  the  registration  of  the  first  information report  was  handed  over  to  Inspector  -  Krishan  Pal  Singh. Apprehending  arrest,  based  on  the  allegations  levelled  by respondent  no.2  against  the  appellants,  they  approached  the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, by filing Writ Petition (MB) No. 2600 of 2002.  It is not a matter of dispute, that the High Court stayed the arrest of the appellants. 5. Krishan  Pal  Singh,  having  investigated  into  the matter, filed a closure report dated 27.4.2003.  The instant report shall hereinafter be referred to as the “First Closure Report”.   The  text  of  the  aforesaid  closure  report  is reproduced hereunder:

“It  is  stated  that  on  10.04.2002  on  the information of the complainant to PS Shivkutti, Allahabad, after registering a case, Sh. K.P. Singh,  ASI,  PS  Hazratganj,  started investigation  and  investigated  the  matter  by CO,  Hazratganj.  Thereafter,  I  conducted  the investigation and after thorough investigation and the statements of the witnesses and perusal

3

Page 4

of the record, no substance has been found in the allegations. Moreover, the dispute occurred due  to  the  personal  differences  and  egoism between them. The accused has earlier filed a case of dissolution of marriage and in a fit of revenge  the  complainant  filed  an  FIR.  On perusal  of  the  evidences,  no  dowry  case,  as alleged to have been made out. Therefore, the final report is closed due to lack of evidences by  the  investigation.  Final  Report  be accepted.”   

6. Respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta, it seems, expressed dissatisfaction with the investigation carried out by Krishan Pal  Singh.   It  is  therefore,  that  she  addressed  a representation to the Superintendent of Police, City (East), Lucknow, requiring him to order further investigation, through some  other  police  station.   In  this  context,  it  would  be relevant to notice, that the Superintendent of Police ordered further  investigation  by  the  Station  House  Officer,  Police Station  Hussainganj.   Accordingly,  Badan  Singh  conducted further investigation.  Having carried out the investigation, Badan Singh also submitted a closure report dated 10.07.2003. The  instant  report  shall  hereinafter  be  referred  to  as  the “Second  Closure  Report”.   The  text  of  the  same  is  being extracted hereunder:

“I perused the case diary maintained by Sr. SI and  former  Ios  and  considered  the  same carefully.  I  have  also  considered  the statements  maintaining  the  case  diary  and contents of the annexures. I also  considered the statements of complainant and her family members. The complainant and her family members have only stated orally regarding the demand of dowry for demanding a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and

4

Page 5

no  evidence  has  been  produced  either  by  the complainant or her family members. Beside it, there is no independent and fair evidence has been produced to substantiate that the money has  been  demanded  in  dowry.  The  complainant with her free will stayed with her husband in Australia,  America,  Singapore  and  Pune  for years. It is a dispute of ego between the wife and husband has the complainant belongs to a well to do and prosperious family and also an educated  lady  and  therefore  she  does  not consider anything less than her husband. Beside it, her husband Sh. Mukul Gupta is a son of an IAS  officer  and  working  in  high  ranking  as Director. He filed a divorce case in the Family Court,  Lucknow,  as  he  could  not  get  proper behaviour  from  her  wife  towards  himself  and towards his family members. The complainant has filed an FIR to press her husband to withdraw the case and force her to live with him and therefore she has lodged an FIR of demand of dowry. The former IO, Sh. C.L. Sachan, SI has considered each and every point and statement of complainant and her family members and after examining  and  carrying  on  the  investigation submitted the final report. After perusing the report  of  former  IO  and  statements  of  other witnesses,  I  am  entirely  satisfied  of  the investigation carried out by the former IO and in my considered opinion nothing has been wrong in the investigation carried out by the former IO  which  requires  further  investigation therefore,  I  am  entirely  satisfied  with  the investigation carried out by the former IO and therefore present final report is being filed and therefore it may be accepted.”

7. Sonia  Gupta  -  respondent  no.2,  filed  a  protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, against the filing of the First Closure Report dated 27.4.2003.  The aforesaid protest petition was filed on 17.07.2006.  Having taken  into  consideration  the  issues  canvassed  by  respondent

5

Page 6

no.2, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, ordered further investigation vide order dated  06.09.2006. 8. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.9.2006, Ram Saran Varshney - appellant no.1, and Saroj Varshney - appellant no.2 filed  Criminal Revision Petition No. 378 of 2006 before the Sessions  Judge,  Lucknow.   By  an  order  dated  7.11.2006,  the revisional Court stayed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, dated 6.9.2006 (whereby she had ordered further investigation in the matter). 9. Despite the fact, that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, dated 6.9.2006 had been stayed by the  revisional  Court,  further  investigation  continued  to  be carried on, by yet another investigating officer, namely, N.K. Bajpai.  After completing investigation, he also submitted a closure  report  dated  27.02.2007.   The  instant  report  shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Third Closure Report”.  It is  not  necessary  to  extract  the  whole  of  the  report. Accordingly,  a  relevant  part  thereof  is  being  reproduced hereunder:

“...Accused  no.  3  Mukul  Gupta  is  posted  in London. He was contacted on 8.2.2007 on return to Lucknow. His father Sh. R.S. Varshney and mother Smt. Saroj Varshney are now residing at their residence situated at Sitapur Road, Sri Nathji Vihar Colony. They were also contacted and they told that the complainant letter dated 14.2.2002  written  by  Sh.  D.D.  Varshney  to Distt.  Magistrate  is  a  forged  one  as  such complainant letter have never been received in the  District  Magistrate's  office.  In  this connection has produced a proof on 8.8.2002 and

6

Page 7

a copy of that has been submitted. Mukul has also told that he had got prepared a bank draft for Rs. 2,50,000/- in the name of Sonia and as a  maintenance  allowance  during  the  divorce proceedings,  Rs.  5000/-  per  month  has  been given w.e.f. April 2003. He hasd also given a certified copy of the statement of Sonia which has been recorded by Sonia in Case No. 365/02 under  Section  125  Cr.PC  before  the  Court, Allahabad.  In  which  Sonia  has  accepted  that Mukul  has  got  preparted  a  FD  and  the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5000/- per month is being received by her. He has also confessed that there were strained relationship between her  and  Mukul  and  in  between  she  used  to apologise from Mukul. She has also confessed that  on  9.2.2002  she  had  sent  an  e-mail  to Mukul in which she has mentioned orally that his family has demanded dowry and in case of non  receipt  of  Rs.  10  lakhs,  she  will  be harassed and tortured. Regarding the demand of dowry, no evidence or independent witness has been produced by the complainant or her family members. Besides it, none has mentioned about the  demand  of  Rs.  10  lakhs  as  dowry.  The Australia,  America,  Singapore  and  Pune.  The dispute has taken place due to egoism of both husband and wife being belonged to a well to do and prosperous family because the complainant was borne in a well to do and prosperous family and  got  higher  education  of  Allahabad University and she is not less than, in any way, her husband. Sh. Mukul Gupta is also son of an IAS officer and is also posted abroad on a higher post.  He has also filed a divorce case before the Family Court due to not getting good behaviour from her wife towards him and his parents. The wife has also filed a dowry case against the husband and his family members with a view to withdraw the divorce case and compel  to  live  her  husband  with  her.  After analyzing the investigations conducted by the previous IO Sh. C.S. Sachan, SI and Sh. Badan Singh, Sr. SI, PS Hussainganj on each and every points  of  the  allegations  leveled  by  the complainant and her family members, the IO has finished the final report. I also agree with the  previous  investigations  conducted  by  the previous IOs. No point has been left unattended which  require  further  probe,  as  per  my

7

Page 8

knowledge. Therefore, I agree with the previous investigation. Final report may be accepted.”

10. It  would  also  be  relevant  to  mention,  that  the revision  petition  filed  by  the  parents-in-law  of  respondent no.2, assailing the order of further investigation, came to be dismissed  on  1.3.2008.   The  said  order,  it  seems,  attained finality, as the pleadings do not indicate any further action on the part of the appellants in the matter. 11. Learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants,  has expressly invited our attention to the fact, that after the submission of the Third Closure Report, no direction was given by  any  Court  for  conducting  any  re-investigation/further investigation in the case.  It was submitted during the course of hearing, that no further investigation was ordered to be conducted at the hands of any senior police officer also.  Yet, at the back of the appellants, further investigation into the first information report lodged by respondent no.2, as far back as on 10.4.2002, was carried out, even after the submission of the Third Closure Report.  It was sought to be pointed out, that  the  aforesaid  investigation  came  to  light,  when  Sonia Gupta - respondent no.2 moved an application before the Chief Judicial  Magistrate,  Lucknow,  seeking  the  status  of investigation,  pursuant  to  the  directions  issued  by  her  on 6.9.2006,  directing  further  investigation  into  the  matter. While  taking  cognizance  of  the  said  application,  the  Chief

8

Page 9

Judicial  Magistrate,  Lucknow,  by  an  order  dated  27.03.2008, directed the officer in-charge to file an action taken report. It was at that juncture, that further investigation into the matter,  was  taken  up  by  yet  another  investigating  officer, namely, Uma Shankar Tripathi. 12. Having  completed  the  investigation,  the  fourth Investigating Officer-Uma Shankar Tripathi filed a charge sheet dated 7.5.2008.  The contents of the above charge sheet are reproduced below:

“Above mentioned prosecution dated 10-04-2002 has  been  registered  on  the  statement  of complainant  Smt.  Sonia  Gupta,  whose investigation  was  first  carried  out  by  Sh. Pankaj  Gautam  C.O.  PS.  Hazrathganj,  S.I.  KP Singh, S.I. CL Sachan, and S.I. SK Bajpai. All the investigating Officers after investigation submitted  final  report  through  F.R.  207. However, the Hon'ble Court passed an order on the  petition  of  the  complainant  for investigation  under  Section  178  CrPC.  In pursuance of the Court Order investigation was started.  On  the  basis  of  the  statement  of  the complainant, witness statements, charge sheet No. 203/08 is being filed against the accused persons  in  column  no.  3  under  sections 498-A/506 IPC and ¾ Dowry Protection Act, after cancelling the previously filed final reports. Kindly consider the evidence and take action as per law. It is noteworthy that by the accused persons have  been  granted  a  Stay  on  Arrest  by  the Hon'ble High Court. The investigation is being concluded. Charge sheet is filed against all the accused.”

9

Page 10

Consequent upon the filing of the aforesaid charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, cognizance was taken on 12.5.2008, and the appellants were summoned to face trial.  The above order is being reproduced hereunder:

“Today, the PS Hazratganj in Crime Case No. 326/02  after  investigation,  chargesheet  has been  issued  against  the  accused(s)  Ramsaran Varsheney,  Smt.  Saroj  Varshney,  Mukul  Gupta, Smt.  Bhawna  Varshney,  Smt.  Renu  Gupta,  Smt. Tunika Jaiswal under Sections 498-A/506 IPC and 3/4  Dowry  Prohibition  Act.  Case  diary  was perused. Sufficient grounds are for challans. Accused are challaned. Case is registered. To appear on 14.5.2008 as 14.5.2008 has already been fixed. To appear on the fixed date.”

13. The  appellants  filed  another  revision  petition challenging  the  order  dated  12.5.2008,  taking  cognizance, before  the  Sessions  Court,  Lucknow.   The  Sessions  Judge dismissed  the  revision  petition  filed  by  the  appellants  on 1.7.2008. 14. The  appellants  then  approached  the  High  Court  of Judicature at Allahabad, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2463 of 2008 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 7.5.2008, the  order  passed  by  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate  dated 12.5.2008, and the order passed by the Sessions Judge dated 1.7.2008.  The impugned order came to be passed by the High Court on 1.12.2008, when the challenge raised by the appellants before the High Court, was rejected.

10

Page 11

15. The first contention advanced at the hands of the learned senior counsel for the appellants was, that the charge sheet dated 7.5.2008, and the order taking cognizance dated 12.5.2008  were  cryptic  in  nature.   It  was  the  vehement contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the Fourth Investigating Officer - Uma Shankar Tripathi, as also, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, had not taken into consideration the earlier closure reports, and as such, the  charge  sheet  dated  7.5.2008,  as  also,  the  order  dated 12.5.2008  taking  cognizance,  were  not  sustainable  in  law. Insofar  as  the  instant  aspect  of  the  matter  is  concerned, learned senior counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak  and  others  (2013)  5  SCC  762.   Our  attention  was expressly invited to the following observations recorded in the above judgment:

“41. Having discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate under Section 173 of the Code, now we have to examine the kinds of reports that are contemplated under the provisions of the Code and/or as per the judgments of this Court. The first and the foremost document that reaches the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is the  first  information  report.  Then,  upon completion of the investigation, the police is required to file a report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. It will be appropriate  to term this report as a primary report, as it is the  very  foundation  of  the  case  of  the prosecution before the court. It is the record of the case and the documents annexed thereto, which are considered by the court and then the court of the Magistrate is expected to exercise any of the three options aforenoticed. Out of

11

Page 12

the  stated  options  with  the  court,  the jurisdiction  it would  exercise has  to be  in strict consonance with the settled principles of law. The power of the Magistrate to direct “further investigation” is a significant power which  has  to  be  exercised  sparingly,  in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice.  To  provide  fair,  proper  and unquestionable investigation is the obligation of the investigating agency and the court in its supervisory capacity is required to ensure the same. Further investigation conducted under the orders of the court, including that of the Magistrate or by the police of its own accord and,  for  valid  reasons,  would  lead  to  the filing  of  a  supplementary  report.  Such supplementary  report  shall  be  dealt  with  as part of the primary report. This is clear from the fact that the provisions of Sections 173(3) to 173(6) would be applicable to such reports in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code. 42. Both  these   reports  have  to  be  read conjointly and it is the cumulative effect of the reports and the documents annexed thereto to which the court would be expected to apply its  mind  to  determine  whether  there  exist grounds  to  presume  that  the  accused  has committed the offence. If the answer is in the negative, on the basis of these reports, the court shall discharge an accused in compliance with the provisions of Section 227 of the Code. 49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct  “further  investigation”  or  file supplementary  report  with  the  leave  of  the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood   but  also  adopted  it  as  a  legal practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct  “further  investigation”  and  file “supplementary report” with the leave of the court. The courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct “further  investigation”  and/or  to  file  a

12

Page 13

“supplementary  report”  will  have  to  be  read into,  and is  a necessary  implication of  the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters  which  are  understood  and  implemented for  a  long  time,  and  such  practice  that  is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process.  53. The court of competent jurisdiction is duty-bound  to  consider  all  reports,  entire records  and  documents  submitted  therewith  by the investigating agency as its report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code. This rule is subject to only the following exceptions:

(a) Where a specific order has been passed by the learned Magistrate at the request  of  the  prosecution  limited  to exclude any document or statement or any part thereof; (b) Where an order is passed by the higher  courts  in  exercise  of  its extraordinary  or  inherent  jurisdiction directing that any of the reports i.e. primary report, supplementary report or the  report  submitted  on  “fresh investigation”  or  “reinvestigation”  or any part of it be excluded, struck off the court record and be treated as non est.”     

(emphasis is ours) 16. There  is  no  serious  ambiguity  in  the  submission advanced  by  the  learned  senior  counsel  representing  the appellants.  On a perusal of charge sheet dated 7.5.2008, and the order taking cognizance dated 12.5.2008, it is apparent, that the Second and the Third Closure Reports were apparently not taken into consideration.  In the above factual position , there would be no difficulty for us to accept the contention

13

Page 14

advanced at the hands of the learned senior counsel for the appellants.  The submission made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, has however been strenuously contested on behalf of the learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, as  also,  on  behalf  of  respondent  no.2,  who  has  entered appearance in person. 17. Insofar as the Second Closure Report is concerned, it was  the  submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondent-State, that the same must be deemed to have been expressly taken into consideration, when consequent upon the filing of the First Closure Report dated 27.4.2003, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow ordered further investigation on 6.9.2006.  To support the instant submission, learned counsel for  the  respondent  submitted,  that  the  solitary  contention advanced on behalf of the appellants, in the challenge to the order  dated  6.9.2006  is  noted  in  paragraph  6  in  the  order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court, Lucknow dated  1.3.2008.   Paragraph  6,  aforementioned,  is  reproduced below:

“6. The only basis taken in the Revision is that  the  further  investigation  done  by  the investigating officer S.S.I., Shri Badan Singh Police Station Hussainganj, was not considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who passed the disputed  order.  In  this  context,  it  is worthwhile mentioning that the Final Report on the  orders  of  further  investigation  was returned  on  its  own  level  by  the  Police Superintendent (East), Lucknow, on which from 29.06.2003  S.S.I.,  Badan  Singh  started  the investigation and noted the supplementary Case

14

Page 15

Diary. On 10.07.2003 the Final Report which was forwarded  by  the  previous  investigating officer, that only was accepted by S.S.I. Badan Singh  after  inspecting  the  case  diary  and studied the mentioned statements and documents and then according to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. forwarded the result of further investigation. S.S.I.  Shri  Badan  Singh  during  further investigation did not mention any statement of the  witnesses  himself,  but  relying  on  the statements  mentioned  of  the  previous investigating officer submitted his result.”  (emphasis is ours)

While dealing with the above solitary contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants, the Sessions Court, while rejecting the appellants' claim, recorded as under:

“10. During  the  Revision,  along  with affidavit  18-B  in  Hon'ble  High  Court, Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow the certified photocopy of the writ petition No.6588/MB/2006 instituted by the accused/revisionists was made available, by which it was applied that during investigation by the police station Hazratganj the  police will  not arrest  the accuseds  and also it has been requested to dismiss the First Information  Report  registered  by  the complainant.  Also  relying  on  the  judgment passed  by  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  in  Writ Petition  No.2600/2002  dated  15.05.2002,  the order  was  affixed  with  the  writ  petition according to which during the investigation of Crime No.  326/2002 under sections 498A, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Hazratganj, was arrest stayed of the revisionists/accused.  District  Court,  Lucknow Court by its order dated 15.03.2002 passed an injunction against the respondent/complainant. This order was also made available in form of 18-B/37  and 39.  Order passed  by the  Hon'ble High  Court,  Allahabad  dated  18.10.2006 (18-B/51) was made available by which during the  investigation  the   arrest  of  the revisionists were stayed by the Hon'ble High Court,  Allahabad  therefore  the accused/revisionists are not adversely affected

15

Page 16

by  the  disputed  order  dated  06.09.2006 directing for further investigation. Since at the  time of  passing the  aforesaid order  the further investigation conducted by the S.S.I., Shri Badan Singh was before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also no other ground has been taken in the Revision, hence there is no ground to  interfere  in  the  disputed  order.  The Revision is liable to be dismissed.”

(emphasis is ours) 18. A perusal of the submission made at the behest of the appellants,  and  the  order  passed  by  the  Sessions  Judge, according to the respondents, leave no room for any doubt, that the  Sessions  Judge,  while  rejecting  the  solitary  contention advanced  at  the  hands  of  the  appellants,  arrived  at  the conclusion, that the Second Closure Report dated 10.07.2003, had duly been taken into consideration by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.  The aforesaid finding recorded by the Sessions Judge in the order dated 1.3.2008, was not assailed by the appellants, and therefore attained finality. 19. Without  repeating  the  contention  advanced  at  the hands  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  we  are satisfied, that the submission advanced is wholly justified and deserves to be accepted.  In the above view of the matter, we hereby hold, that while passing the order dated 6.9.2006, the Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Lucknow,  had  duly  taken  into consideration the second Closure Report dated 10.07.2003. 20. Insofar as the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned senior counsel for the appellants is concerned, the

16

Page 17

only remaining contention is, that the concerned authorities had not taken into consideration the Third Closure Report dated 27.02.2007, either  at the time of investigation, whereafter the Fourth Investigating Report was submitted on 23.4.2008, or at the time of submission of the charge sheet on 7.5.2008, and even at the time of taking cognizance at the hands of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow on 12.5.2008. 21. When confronted with the second submission, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph, learned counsel for the respondent pointed out, that the Third Closure Report was based on the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow dated 6.9.2006, whereby further investigation was ordered.  It was submitted on behalf of the respondent, that in the revision petition  filed  by  the  appellants  themselves  (before  the Sessions Judge, Lucknow), further investigation ordered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, was stayed on 7.11.2006. In view of the above restraint order, passed by the Sessions Judge,  Lucknow,  no  further  investigation  could  have  been carried out, after the order dated 6.9.2006 had been passed. It is also the pointed contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the Third Closure Report was submitted on 27.02.2007, whereas the interim order passed on 7.11.2006 came to  be  vacated  only  on  1.3.2008,  when  the  criminal  revision petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, by the Sessions Judge.  In sum and substance, it was the contention of the

17

Page 18

learned  counsel  for  the  respondent,  that  the  entire investigation  leading  to  the  passing  of  the  Third  Closure Report dated 27.2.2007, was a nullity in law. 22. We have no doubt whatsoever, when the Third Closure Report is based on the direction issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,  Lucknow,  ordering  further  investigation.   The aforesaid  order  passed  by  the  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate, Lucknow, came to be stayed by the Sessions Judge, Lucknow on 7.11.2006, and the said order continued till 1.3.2008(when the criminal revision petition filed by the appellants came to be dismissed).  In the meantime, during the subsistence of the restraint order (staying investigation), the investigation was completed and the third investigating officer – N.K. Bajpai submitted the Third Closure Report dated 27.2.2007.  Since the above  investigation  leading  to  the  closure  report  dated 27.2.2007 was clearly in violation of an express judicial order to the contrary, in our considered view, the same is a nullity in law, and cannot be accepted.  In view of the conclusion recorded  hereinabove,  we  are  satisfied,  that  the  contention advanced at the hands of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the Second and Third Closure Reports were not taken into consideration, cannot be accepted as a justifiable plea in law, insofar as the present controversy is concerned. The same is accordingly rejected.

18

Page 19

23. Despite  our  conclusion  recorded  hereinabove,  in respect of the first contention advanced by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is important to refer to his second submission also.  It was the pointed contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6, namely, Bhavana Vershney, Renu Gupta and Tulika Jaiswal, are all sisters-in-law of respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta.  In that view of the matter, they are the sisters of the husband of respondent  no.2  -  Mukul  Gupta.   We  were  informed,  that appellant  nos.  4,  5  and  6  are  all  married  and  living independently.  They are not residing with any of the appellant nos. 1 to 3.  Since they are married, and living independently in different places, they had no concern with the relationship of respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta with appellant nos. 1 to 3. Further more, our attention was also invited to the fact, that no clear allegations have been levelled by respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta against any of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6.  Even during the course of hearing, respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta, who entered appearance in person, did not contest the aforesaid factual position.  Her only submission, during the course of hearing  was,  that  her  three  sisters-in-law  had  visited  the matrimonial house of respondent no.2, on the occasion of 'Grah Parvesh', and the 'Naming Ceremony' of her daughter.  We are of the  view,  that  the  visit  of  the  three  sisters-in-law  of respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta, on the above two occasions were

19

Page 20

for celebration, and cannot be treated as occasions where they harassed respondent no.2.  In any case, in the absence of any material on the record of this case, relating to harassment on the above two occasions, we are satisfied, that the proceeding initiated against appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6, consequent upon the registration of the first information report by respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta on 10.04.2002, was not justified.  The same deserves  to  be  quashed.   The  same  is  accordingly  hereby quashed. 24. Since,  we  have  not  interfered  with  the  impugned summoning order dated 12.05.2008(as against appellant nos. 1 to 3), we would consider it just and appropriate to request the trial Court, to take up and dispose of the proceedings emerging out of Crime Case No. 326 of 2002, registered at Police Station Shiv  Kutti,  Allahabad,  under  Sections  498A  and  506  of  the Indian  Penal  Code,  read  with  Sections  3/4  of  the  Dowry Prohibition  Act,  against  appellant  nos.  1  to  3  only,  as expeditiously as possible. 25. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

.………………..……………….…....…J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar)

………………...…………………….…J. (N.V. Ramana)

New Delhi; February 05, 2016.

20