SHLOK BHARDWAJ versus RUNIKABHARDWAJ & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1372 · Decided: 10-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. ' ,. 
A 
"\• . 
[2014] 14S.C.R.1372 
. SHLOK BHARDWAJ, 
v. 
RUNIKABHARDWAJ & ORS. 
B, .. 
· (CrimlnalAppealNo.741 of2009) 
DECEMBER 10, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
. 
. . 
ADARSHKUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
c 
Jurisdiction· - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court -
Scope of -
Matrimonial dispute - Divorce Petition by 
husband as well as wife - Criminal Case by wife u/ss. 498-A, 
406, 506 /PC and ss. 314 of Dowry Prohibition Act resulting · 
in acquittal of husband and his relatives by the trial court-
D On parties reaching settlement, divorce by mutual consent 
granted - Thereafter, wife challenging the acquittal order -
High Court in its revisional jurisdiction set aside the acquittal 
order and remanded the matter for trial afresh - Held: Scope 
of revisional jurisdiction is limited- High Court could interfere 
E 
with acquittal order only when it was perverse - In the present 
case order of the trial court was not perverse ..:. Hence 
interference therewith not justified specially when the parties 
had taken divorce by mutualconsent- Penal Code, 1860-. 
ss, 498-A, 406 and 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - ss. 
F 3/4- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- s. 401 . 
.. : 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of the 
High Court does not extend to re~appreciation of 
evidence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High 
G Court can interfere with the acquittal only if there is 
perversity in the order of acquittal. In the present case, 
the order of acquittal could not be held to be perverse. 
The Magistrate having dealt with the matter threadbare, 
the High Court, in exercise of revision al jurisdiction was 
H 
; 
1372 
. \ 
:· ,;., 
SH LOK BHARDWAJ v. RUN I KA BHARDWAJ & ORS. 
1373 
not justified in interfering with the order of acquittal A 
particularly when the parties had reached the settlement 
before this Court on the basis of which divorce by mutual 
consent was granted by the Family Court. [Para 12] 
[1377-F-H; 1378-D-E] 
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State ofBihar(2002) 
6 SCC 650: 2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 495- relied 
on. 
. 
' 
B. 
2. Once the matter was settled between the parties 
and the said settlement was given effect to in the form of c 
divorce by mutual consent, no further dispute survived 
between the parties. No liberty was reserved by the wife 
to continue further proceedings agaim~t the. husband. 
Thus, the wife was, after settling the matter, estopped 
fro'.11 continuing the proceedings. [Para 12][1377-E-F] 
D 
Case Law Reference 
2002 (1) Suppl. SCR 495 
relied on 
Para 9 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
Appeal No. 741 of2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.2006 of the 
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 1159 of 2002. 
Appellant-in-person. 
E 
B. K. Satija, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs., for the 
Respondents. 
F 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has _been 
preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 21st 
November, 2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in G 
Criminal Revision Case No.1159 of 2002. 
2. By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed 
the revision petition filed by the Respondent, set aside the 
order dated 30'h July, 2002 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 
Ghaziabad, in Case No.356 of 2002 and remanded the matter H 
, 1374 
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS I· [2014] 14 S.C.R. 
· A · back to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with 
law. 
· , 
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. · 
4. The question raised for our consideration is whether 
B. in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court was justified 
in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant, having regard to 
· the facts and circumstances of the case.' 
· 
'. 
5. The appellant and Respondent No.1 were married on 
25th January, 1996. The appellant belongs to Allahabad where 
C 
his parents live and the respondent belonged to Jabalpurwhe;re 
her parents are living. The appellant is said to be employed at 
Delhi in Central Government. The appellant-husband filed a 
divorce petition on 7th July, 1997 at Allahabad Family Court. 
The wife lodged First Information Report dated 4th November, 
D 
1997 at Ghaziabad making allegations of cruelty agains,t the 
husband. After investigation, the husband and four of his family 
members were tried under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 IPC and 
3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act before the Judicial Magistrate, 
Ghaziabad, in Case No.356/2002. The tri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.