Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Babulal Yadav vs State Of U.P on 11 March, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).1300/2026
[Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4027/2026]
BABULAL YADAV & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 08.10.2025 in an
application filed by the appellants herein bearing
no.11701/2025 by which the application preferred by the
appellants seeking to challenge the order passed by the Trial
Court declining to discharge the two appellants from Sessions
Case No.726/2024 came to be rejected.
3. To put it briefly, the appellants are sought to be put to
trial in the Court of the Additional District Judge F.T.C.-II
in Sessions Case No.726/2024 arising out of Case Crime
No.81/2023 registered with Chetganj Police Station, District
Varanasi for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B,
323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”),
respectively and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.03.25
(for short, “the D.P. Act”), respectively.
18:38:49 IST
Reason:
4. We take notice of the fact that First Information Report
came to be lodged by the father of the deceased against in all
2
seven accused persons. The FIR lodged by the father reads
thus:-
“12. First Information Contents:
To: Station Incharge, Police Station CHETGANJ,
Varanasi, Sir, I request that the applicant Om
Prakash Yadav, s/o late Mangru Yadav, r/o CK 65/423
Badi Pyari, Police Station Chowk, Varanasi. My
daughter Muskan Yadav alias Neha Yadav was married
on 06.12.2020 to Sameer Yadav alias Boo, son of
late Raju Yadav, r/o C4/234 Sarai Govardhan, PS
CHETGANJ, Varanasi. Sir, a few days after marriage,
husband Sameer Yadav, uncle Babu Lai Yadav, Naresh
Yadav and younger brother Pawan Yadav, aunt Rita
Yadav, sister-in-law Neha Yadav and brother-in-law
Govind Yadavare residents of Pandeypur Varanasi.
Sir, the above-mentioned people used to harass my
daughter every day by demanding cash as dowry and
treating her like a servant. Sir, my son-in-law was
addicted to alcohol and gambling. Every day after
drinking alcohol, he used to come home and beat my
daughter. We tried to make Sameer understand many
times but the above-mentioned people used to
threaten us that they will kill your daughter and
marry someone else and after insulting us, they
used to drive us out of their house. Sir, on the
night of 13.08.2023 at about 1:30 am, I received a
call from my daughter’s in-laws that your daughter
had hanged herself, but when we went to the spot,
my daughter’s body was found hanging from the fan
in a suspicious condition. Sir, my daughter was
murdered for dowry by the above-mentioned in-laws.
Therefore, I request you to accept my application
and kindly take appropriate action. Dated
14.08.2023 Applicant Signature Hindi readable Om
Prakash Yadav 7905344340 Note: This was typed
verbatim by me, Hon’ble Mr. Puneet Kumar Singh.”
5. The two appellants before us are accused nos.2 and 3,
respectively in the FIR. The accused no.1 figuring in the FIR,
namely, Sameer Yadav is the husband of the deceased. The other
accused persons, i.e., accused nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively,
are family members of the husband.
6. The case put up by the prosecution is one of dowry death.
3
7. At the end of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer thought fit to file chargesheet against four accused
persons named in the FIR.
8. A closure report was filed insofar as the three lady
accused are concerned.
9. It also appears that the appellants before us preferred a
discharge application under Section 227 of the CrPC before the
Trial Court. The said discharge application came to be
rejected.
10. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Trial
Court, they went before the High Court, invoking the
Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India. The High Court also declined to interfere in the
matter.
11. In such circumstances, the appellants are here before us
with the present appeal.
12. We heard Mr. Bhuwan Raj, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants and Mr. Garvesh Kabra, the learned counsel
appearing for the State.
13. We take notice of the fact that both the appellants
before us are brothers of the father-in-law of the deceased.
14. Having regard to the omnibus nature of allegations
levelled in the FIR and also considering the overall materials
on record, we are of the view that it will be a travesty of
justice to put the two appellants before us to trial on the
accusation of having committed offence of dowry death.
15. We fail to understand what has the two brothers of the
4
father-in-law of the deceased to do with the demand of dowry.
At times, Court should look or rather read in between the
lines insofar as the allegations are concerned. It appears
that the entire family has been dragged into this matter.
16. In such circumstances referred to above, we allow this
appeal. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set
aside.
17. The accused appellants before us stand discharged from
the Sessions Case No.726/2024 referred to above.
18. The trial shall now proceed against the other two
accused, in accordance with law.
19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
…………………………………………….J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………….J
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI
11TH MARCH, 2026
5
ITEM NO.46 COURT NO.7 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).4027/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08-10-2025
in MP No. 11701/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad]
BABULAL YADAV & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P & ANR. Respondent(s)
Date : 11-03-2026 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhuwan Raj, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Garvesh Kabra,AOR
Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Adv.
Mr. Kanik N. Jindal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the singed order which
is placed on the file.
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(HARPREET KAUR) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
