RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 05-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
(2016] I S.C.R. 468 
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 128of2011) 
B 
FEBRUARY 05, 2016 
c 
[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 
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 
F 
6 (the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2) - The criminal proceeding 
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 
H 
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 
468 
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
469 
investigation leading to the third closure report dated 27.2.2007 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
Case Law Reference 
2012 (13) SCR 1005 
referred to. 
Para 15 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal No. 
128 of2011 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F· 
G 
Singh for the Appellants. 
H 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
Pawan Shree Aggarwal, Pragati Neekhra for the Respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sonia Gupta, -In-Person 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. The challenge raised in 
the instant appeal is, as against the order dated 7.5.2008, namely, the 
charge sheet wherein the appellants be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.