RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

                            (2016] I S.C.R. 468


A              RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS
                                    v.
             STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 128of2011)
B                          FEBRUARY 05, 2016
        [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.)
         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - FIR by
  respondent No.2 - Against the appellants - Investigations and
  further investigations in the matter - Closure reports submitted by
c three  investigating officers - After investigation by the fourth
  investigating officer, charge-sheet u/ss. 498A and 506 !PC rlw. ss.
  314 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Cognizance of the charge-
  shee/ taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated
  12. 5.2008 - Revision petition challenging order dated 12. 5.2008
D dismissed by order dated 1. 7.2008 - Petition by appellants uls.482
  for quashing the charge-sheet and the orders dated 12.j.2008 and
  1. 7.2008 - Petition dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: In
  the facts of the case, it cannot be said that during fourth
  investigation, whereafter charge-sheet was framed and in the order
E passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of the
  charge-sheet, second and third closure reports were not taken into
  consideration - Therefore, the charge-sheet and order dated
   12.5.2008 need not be interfered with - However, in the facts, the
  case of harassment is not made out against appellant Nos. 4, 5 and
   6 (the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2) - The criminal proceeding
F against them is liable to be quashed - Trial court directed to take
   up and dispc>se of the proceedings only against appellant Nos. 1 to
  3 (i.e. parents-in-law and husband of respondent No.2) - Penal
   Code, 1860 - ss. 498A and 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 - ss.
   3 and 4.
G           Disposing of the appeal, the Court
           HELD: 1. In the facts of the case, it is apparent that while
     passing the order dated 6.9.2006 (whereby further investigation
    · was ordered), the Chief Judicial Magistrate had duly taken into
      consideration the second Closure. Report dated 10.07.2003. The
H
                                    468
  RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                           469


investigation leading to the third closure report dated 27.2.2007        A
was clearly in violation of an express judicial order to the contrary,
the same is a nnllity in law, and cannot be accepted. Therefore,
the plea of the appellants that during fourth investigation as well
as by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Second and Third Closure
Reports were not taken into consideration, cannot be accepted
                                                                         B
as a justifiable plea in law, insofar as the present controversy is
concerned. [Paras 19 & 22][480-G; 840-G; 481-G-H]
       2. Appellant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are all sisters-in-law of
respondent No.2. They are all married and living independently.
Thus, they .had no concern with the relationship of respondent
No.2 with appellant Nos. 1 to 3. No clear allegations have been          c
levelled by respondent No.2 against any of them. The only
submission of respondent No.2, during the course of hearing was,
that her three sisters-in-law had visited the matrimonial house of
respondent No.2, on two occasions. The two occasions were for
celebration, and cannot be treated as occasions where they               D
harassed respondent No.2. In the absence of any material on the
record relating to harassment on the above two occasions, the
proceeding initiated against appellant Nos. 4, 5 and 6 was .not
justified.The same deserves to be quashed. [Para 23][482-B-G]
      3. Trial Court directed to take up and dispose of the              E
proceedings under Sections 498A and 506 IPC r/w. Sections 3/4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against appellant Nos. 1 to 3 only.
[Para 24] [482-G-H; 483-A]
      Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others 2012
      (13) SCR 1005 : (2013) 5 SCC 762 - referred to.                    F·
                        Case Law Reference
2012 (13) SCR 1005                    referred to.      Para 15
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No.
128 of2011
                                                                         G
       From the Judgment and Order dated 01.12.2008 of the High Com1
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow inCriminal Misc.
Case No. 2463 of2008
      Huzefa Ahmadi, M. Shoeb Alam, Shahrukh Alam, Rohan, Ujjwal
Singh for the Appellants.                                                H
470                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2016] I S.C.R.


 A           Pawan Shree Aggarwal, Pragati Neekhra for the Respondent.
             Sonia Gupta, -In-Person
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. The challenge raised in
 B    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 Dowty 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
 c    of the charge sheet, filed against the appellants.
              2. It is essential to narraie 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. I and Saroj Varshney- appellant no.2 are
 D    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
 E    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. I and 2 initiated civil
      proceedings, to restrain respondent no.2 from entering their house. By
 F
      an order dated 15.03 .2002, the District Judge, Lucknow granted the
      necessaty restraint order, in favour of appellant nos. I and 2. In sum
      and substance, respondent no.2 was restrained from forcibly entering
       into the house allotted to appellant no. I, namely, C-79, Butlar Palace
      Colony, PS Hazratganj, Lucknow, without the permission of the Court.
 G
             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
 H    retaliatoty act to the divorce petition filed by appellant no.3 - Mukul
  RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                   471
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Gupta, respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta registered a first information report       A
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
                                                                                 B
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.                                                    c
       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 Rep01t''. The text of the aforesaid
closure report is reproduced hereunder:
       "It is stated that on 10.04.2002 on the information of the complainant    D
        to PS Shivkutti, Allahabad, after registering a case, Sh. K.P. Singh,
        AS!, 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            E
        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    F
         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                   G
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
outthe investigation, Badan Singh also submitted a closure report dated           H
472                   SUPREME COCRT REPORTS                     (2016] I S.C.R.



 A    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 los and
            considered the same carefully. I have also considered the
 B          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. I 0 lakhs and no evidence has been
            produced either by the complainant or her family members. Beside
 c          it, there is no independent and fair evidence has been produced to
            substantiate that the money has been demanded in dowry. The
            complainai1t 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
 D          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 !AS 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.
 E          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 10, Sh. C.L.
            Sachan, SI has considered each and every point and statement of
            complainant and her family members and after examining and
 F          carrying on the investigation submitted the final report. After
            perusing the report of former 10 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 10 which
            requires further investigation therefore, I am entirely satisfied with
 G          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
 H
  RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                  473
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

filed on 17.07 .2006. Having taken into consideration the issues canvassed      A
by respondent no.2, the Chief Juqicial Magistrate, Lucknow, ordered
further investigation vide order dated 06.09.2006.
      8. Dissatisfied with the order dated 6.9.2006, Ram Saran Yarshney
- appellant no.], and Saroj Varshney - appellant no.2 filed Criminal
Revision Petition No. 378 of2006 before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow.            B
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           c
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:                                     D

       " ... 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.
       Yarshney and mother Smt. Saroj Varshney are now residing at
       their residence situated at Sitapur Road, Sri Nathji YiharColony.
       They were also contacted and they told that the complainant letter       E
       dated 14.2.2002 written by Sh. D.D. Varshney to Distt. Magistrate
        is a forged one as suc11 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/    F
        - 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 accepteci):)iat Mukul has got preparted a FD and t.he         G
        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
                                                                                H
474                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2016] I S.C.R.


 A            family has demanded dowry and in case of non receipt of Rs. JO
              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. I 0 lakhs as dowry. The
              Australia, America, Singapore and Pune. The dispute has taken
 B
              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
 c            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
 D
               the previous 10 Sh. C.S. Sachan, SI and Sh. Sadan 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 !Os. No point has been left unattended
  E            which require further probe, as per my knowledge. Therefore, I
                agree with the previous investigation. Final report may be
                accepted."
                l O. lt would also be relevant to mention, that the revision petition
         filed by the parents-in-law of respondent no.2, assailing the order of
  F      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.
                l l. Learned senior counsel for the appel Ian ts, has expressly invited
         our attention to the fact, that after the submission of the Third Closure
         Report, no direction was given by any Co'lirt for conducting any re-
  G
         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 ofany 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 l 0.4.2002, was carried out,
     H
   RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                  475
            [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

even after the submission of the Third Closure Report. It was sought to          A
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, pursuantto the
directions issued by heron 6.9.2006; directing further investigation into
the matter. While taking cognizance of the said application, the Chief
                                                                                 B
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           c
contents of the above charge sheet are reproduced below:
       "Above mentioned prosecution dated l 0-04-2002 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.l. KP Singh, S.l. CL Sachan, and S.l.             D
       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 ofthe Court
       Order investigation was sta1ted.                                          E
        On the basis of the statement of the complainant, witness
        statements, charge sheet No. 203/08 is being filt<d against the
        accused persons in column no. 3 under sections 498-A/506 !PC
        and Dowry Protection Act, after cancelling the previously filed
      · final reports. Kindly consider the evidence and take action as per       F
        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           G
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
                                                                                 H
476                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2016] I S.C.R.



 A          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 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
 B
            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.
 c
              14. The appellants then approached the High Court of Judicature
      at Allahabad, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2463 of2008
      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
 D    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 sheer dated 7 .5.2008,
 E    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 ShifnkarTripathi,
      as also, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, had not taken into
      consideration the earlier closure reports, and as such, the charge sheet
 F    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 ofVinay Tyagi vs. lrshad Ali alias Deepak
      and others (2013) 5 SCC 762. Our attention was expressly invited to
      the following observations recorded in the above judgment:
 G
             "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
 H
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               477
         [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

  is the first information report. Then, upon completion of the            A
  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
                                                                           B
  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         c
  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
                                                                           D
  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 ofSections 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          E
  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      F
  compli'~nce 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. lt is true that
  though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section     G
  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
                                                                           H
478                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2016] I S.C.R.


 A         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 doctr.ine of
           contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such
 B
           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
 c          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;
 D
            (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
 E          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
 F
   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
 G been strenuously contested on behalf of the learned counsel for the State
   ofUttar Pradesh, as also, on behalfofrespondent 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 sam~
  H   must be deemed to have been expressly taken into consideration, when
  RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                               _479
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

consequent upon the filing of the First Closure Report dated 27.4.2003,      A
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 behalfof
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
                                                                             B
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.1., Shri Badan
      Singh Police Station Hussainganj, was not considered by the Chief
      Judicial Magistrate who passed the disputed order. In this context,
                                                                             c
      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.!.,
      Badan Singh started the investigation and noted the supplementary
      Case Diary. On I 0.07.2003 the Final Report which was fo1warded        D
      by the previous investigating officer, that only was accepted by
      S.S.!. 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.!.
      Shri Badan Singh during further investigation did not mention any
      statement of the witnesses himself, but relying on the statements      E
      mentioned cif the previous investigating offjc~r submitted his
       result."                                         ·
                                                      (emphasis is ours)
      While dealing with the above solitary contention on behalfofthe        F
learned counsel for the appellants,-<:he 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 G
      accused/revisionists was made available, by which it was-applied ·
      th_at 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
                                                                             H
480                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2016] 1 S.C.R.


 A          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 1.P.C. and 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
 B
            respondent/complainant. This order was also made available in
            form ofl 8-B/37 and 39. Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court,
            Allahabad dated 18. I 0.2006 (18-B/5 l)was made available by
            which during the investigation the arrest of the revisionists were
            stayed by the Hon 'ble High Court, Allahabad therefore !fie 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.!., 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
 D
            Revision is liable to be dismissed."
                                                             (emphasis is ours)
             18. A pernsal of the submission made atthe behest of the appellants,
      and the order passed by the Sessions Judge, according to the respondents,
 E    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 I 0.07 .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
 F    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
 G    6.9.2006, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, had duly taken into
      consideration the second Closure Report dated I 0.07 .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
 H
 . RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                 481
            [JAGDISH SIN_GH KHEHAR, J.]

consideration the Third Closure Report dated 27.,02.2007, either at the         A
time of investigation, whereafter the Fourth Investigating Report was
submitted on 23A.2008, or atthe 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             B
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 Judieial Magistrate, Lucknow datedJi.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
                                                                                c
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              D
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.                                          E

       22. We have no doubt w1iatsoever, 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 t':3.2008(when          F
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          G
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
                                                                                H
    482                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2016] I S.C.R.

•
     A    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
     B 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

     c 4,respondent   no.2 - Mukul Gupta. We were informed, that appellant nos.
            5 and 6 are all married and living independently. They are not residing
       with any of the appellant nos. I 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. I to 3. Further
       more, our attention was also invited to the fact, that no clear allegations
     D 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
     E 'Naming Ceremony' of her daughter. We are of the view, that the visit
        of the three sisters-in-law ofrespondent 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
     F  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
          notjustified. The same deserves to be quashed. The same is accordingly
          hereby quashed.

     G            24. Since, we have not interfered with the impugned summoning
          order dated I2.05.2008(as against appellant nos. I 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 of2002, 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
     H
  RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH                                483
           [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Act, against appellant nos. I to 3 only, as expeditiously as possible.        A
      25. The instant appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                     Appeal Disposed of.