Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Ram Saran Varshney and others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2011
Decided on : 05-02-2016
IMPORTANT POINT
Closure report submitted on the basis of investigation conducted during stay order is a nullity.
Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 173 – Further investigation stayed after second closure report and initiation of third investigation – Investigation ought not proceed during stay – Investigation continued and third closure report submitted during stay – Third closure report held nullity. (Para 21, 22)
(2013) 5 SCC 762 – Referred
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 498A and 506 – Wife filing complaints against husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law – All sisters-in-law married and residing far away from matrimonial house of respondent-wife – Further, no specific allegation against sisters-in-law – FIR against sisters-in-law rejected. (Para 23)
Facts of the case:
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.
Appellant no.3 - Mukul Gupta filed a petition seeking divorce from respondent no.2 Sonia Gupta.
In retaliation to the divorce petition filed by appellant no.3, respondent no.2 registered a first information report under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Krishan Pal Singh, having investigated into the matter, filed a closure report dated 27.4.2003 (the “First Closure Report”).
Respondent no.2 addressed a representation to the Superintendent of Police, City (East), Lucknow, requiring him to order further investigation, through some other police station who ordered further investigation by the Station House Officer, Police Station Hussainganj. Accordingly, Badan Singh conducted further investigation. Badan Singh also submitted a closure report dated 10.07.2003 (the “Second Closure Report”).
At the instance of Respondent no.2, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow ordered further investigation vide order dated 06.09.2006.
Ram Saran Varshney -appellant no.1, and Saroj Varshney -appellant no.2 filed Criminal Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow who stayed the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, dated 6.9.2006 ordering further investigation in the matter.
Despite the stay by the revisional Court, further investigation continued to be carried on, by yet another investigating officer, namely, N.K. Bajpai who also submitted a closure report dated 27.02.2007 (the “Third Closure Report”).
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.
Despite the third closure report and no order for further investigation, further investigation into the FIR lodged by respondent no.2, as far back as on 10.4.2002, was carried out.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, 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.
The fourth Investigating Officer-Uma Shankar Tripathi filed a charge sheet dated 7.5.2008.
The appellants filed another revision petition challenging the order taking cognizance, before the Sessions Court, Lucknow which was dismissed.
The appellants then approached the High Court 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 .This petition was rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The second and third closure reports were taken into consideration while taking cognizance.
The third closure report was a nullity.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
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 com
