RAM SARAN VARSHNEY AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 468, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
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 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 
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 
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. I 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 
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. 
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 
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 
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 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 
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 
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 
outthe investigation, Badan Singh also submitted a closure report dated 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
472 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COCRT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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 
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. 
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 
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 
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
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 
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. 
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. 
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 
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/ 
- 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 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
474 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
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 
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 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 
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 
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-
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,
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
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, pursuantto the 
directions issued by heron 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 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. 
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. 
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 
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." 
475 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
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 
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 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 
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, 
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 
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: 
"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
RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
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 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 
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 
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 
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 
477 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
478 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
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 
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 
E 
non est." 
F 
G 
(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 
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 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
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 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 
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, 
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 
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 
mentioned cif the previous investigating offjc~r submitted his 
result." 
· 
(emphasis is ours) 
_479 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
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 
A 
B 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 1 S.C.R. 
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 
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 
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, 
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 
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 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
. RAM SARAN VARSHNEY v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
[JAGDISH SIN_GH KHEHAR, J.] 
consideration the Third Closure Report dated 27.,02.2007, either at the 
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 
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 
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 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 
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 
481 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
482 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R . 
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. 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 
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 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 
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. 
24. Since, we have not interfered with the impugned summoning 
order dated I 2.05.2008(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

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.