Sunday, Apr 28, 2024

24x7 Free Helpline For Men +91-888-2-498-498

Share
whatsapp

Court Name : Supreme Court of India

Law Point: 498a against married sisters of the husband quashed

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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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
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.”
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.
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 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 “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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.

Quick Links
Tags
322
406
False Allegations
DV-Act
FIR
Maintenance dismissed
IPC
No neighbor examined.
IPC 375
Stay by Appellate Court
IPC 304
Electronic evidence
No Proper Source of funds of dowry.
CrPC 127
Legal Terrorism
41a
IPC 302
IndianPenalCode
IPC 376
Maintenance
Passport
CrPC 319
RTI
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC
156(3)
Dowry
No Independent witness examined
Quashing 498a
CrPC 468
unclean hands
clubbing all cases in single court
Caveat
Passport
False Case
HMA 25
Cooling period
No maintenance to deserting wife
Car to husband
RCR
498a
False affidavit
CrPC 313
Dowry Misuse
Mutual Consent Divorce
CrPC 294
306
No relief to people who come to courts with unclean hands
CrPC 41
323
CrPC 340
Diet Money
DP Act
IPC 406
CrPC 128
EXEMPT FROM PERSONAL APPEARANCE
HMA
CrPC 161
504
CrPC 340 - Perjury
Police Custody
IPC 354
prohibition
CrPC 126
Bail
Dowry Death
Child Custody
IPC 497
IPC 334
Vague Allegations
IPC 506
Judicial Custody
Quash
Section 376
NCRB
Wife earning
Divorce
HMA-24
IPC 323

Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law related blogs and websites. We, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, LawOctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc. Many of the judgements are also taken from the websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!

Copyright © 2019-20 SIF Chandigarh. All Rights Reserved