//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec. 498 A IPC and sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act – Sec.173(8) further investigation – Charge sheet filed – Application for further investigation for recovery of stridhan – Allowed – Some Articles produced not satisfied – I.O. filed report under sec.173 – another application for further investigation in respect of Plamtop under special officer supervision – Allowed – Session judge -partly allowed the appeal and set aside the further investigation under special officer – High court confirmed the same – Apex court dismissed the petition confirming High court order = POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL .. Petitioner Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. .. Respondents= 2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41480

Sec. 498 A IPC and sec.3 and 4 of  Dowry Prohibition Act – Sec.173(8) further investigation –  Charge sheet filed – Application for further investigation for recovery of stridhan – Allowed – Some Articles produced not satisfied – I.O. filed report under sec.173 – another application for further investigation in respect of Plamtop under special officer supervision – Allowed – Session judge –partly allowed the appeal and set aside the further investigation under special officer – High court confirmed the same – Apex court dismissed the petition confirming High court order  =

 

 

Thereafter,  the  petitioner  submitted  another  application  (Ex.55)

before the learned  Magistrate  for  an  appropriate  order  and  to  direct

further investigation under Section  173  (8)  of  Cr.P.C.  with  a  special

direction that the same be conducted under  the  direct  supervision  of  an

officer not below the rank of Asstt. Commissioner of Police of zone,  within

whose jurisdiction the Satellite Police Station falls, reiterating the  same

grievance which was made earlier while submitting the application (Ex.8  and

Ex.47) and submitting that Investigating Officer has failed to  recover  the

stridhan and the Palmtop.  Learned CJM by  order  dated  07.08.2010  allowed

the said application and directed the Assistant Commissioner  of  Police  of

the zone to hold further investigation with respect to stridhan and  Palmtop

and to submit the report within 30 days.

 

6.    The respondents dissatisfied with the above order  preferred  revision

application before the Sessions Court and the 3rd Additional Sessions  Judge

by order dated 20.10.2010 partly allowed the revision  application  and  set

aside that part of the order of  the  learned  CJM  by  which  there  was  a

specific direction for further investigation with respect  to  stridhan  and

Palmtop, but maintained the order with respect to further  investigation  by

observing  that  learned  CJM  was  not  justified  in   directing   further

investigation on a particular aspect (Stridhan and Palmtop) and that too  by

a particular officer, relying upon decision of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the

case of Hemant Vs. CBI, reported in (2001)  Crl.  L.J.  (SC)  4190  and  the

decision of this Court in Criminal  Revision  Application  No.738/2008  that

the Magistrate should not direct  that  a  particular  officer  or  even  an

officer of particular rank should conduct further investigation.=

 

 

 

High Court  whereby the learned single Judge has taken  note  of  the

fact  that the Revisional Court  had   directed  further   investigation  by

the concerned officer in charge of the Satellite Police Station   which  had

the capacity to include   every circumstance and thus no  prejudice  in  the

opinion of the learned single Judge would be caused to the petitioner   and,

therefore,  the impugned order passed by  the  learned  III  Addl.  Sessions

Judge,  Ahmedabad  dismissing  the  criminal  revision   petition   was  not

required to be interfered with by the High Court.

 

9.    Having considered the sequence   of events and all the  circumstances,

we agree  with  the  view  of  the  learned  single  Judge  that 

 all  steps

pertaining   to  the  investigation  of  the    stridhan  property   of  the

petitioner had been allowed in favour of the petitioner   and even suo  moto

investigation  was   conducted  by  the  police  which   subsequently    was

confirmed by the order of the Magistrate.   

However,  as per  the   averment

of the petitioner   the  revisional  court  interfered   and  disturbed  the

course of investigation, but the  High  Court  appears  to  have   correctly

noted that the revisional court has also permitted further investigation  by

the concerned  officer in charge of the Satellite Police Station  in  regard

to   the   complaint   of  the  petitioner   alleging  non-recovery  of  her

stridhan    property.   

Thus, whatever was  legally  possible   has  already

been  allowed in favour of the  petitioner   and yet  she  has  come  up  to

this Court by way of  this  special  leave  petition.   

From  the  attending

circumstances,  we are inclined to infer that she has not moved  this  Court

bonafide but perhaps to teach a  lesson  to  the  respondent-husband  rather

than recovery of her stridhan property.  

In any view, if  the  investigation

conducted by the authorities  do not suffer from the   lacunae   or  serious

infirmity, we do not see any reason to issue any further  direction  to  the

court below to take steps  in the matter.  

It  goes  without  saying    that

all remedies that may be available to the petitioner in accordance with  law

for recovery of her ‘stridhan property’, would surely be made  available  to

her.  

But in so far as the impugned order of the High  Court  is  concerned,

the same does not require any interference  in  our  considered  view.   

We,

thus do not find any reason to entertain this special leave  petition  which

is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

2014 (April. Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41480
  T.S. THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.7121/2011
POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL .. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. .. Respondents

O R D E R

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.

1. The petitioner herein has filed this special leave petition
challenging the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application No.2145 of 2010
whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and
upheld the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge dated
20.10.2010 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.70/2010. The
petitioner and the contesting respondent and all other counsel in the
matter were heard at the stage of admission itself after which the order
had been reserved.

2. The petitioner’s case is that she is the wife of respondent No.2 and
respondent Nos.3 to 6 are the family members of respondent No.2 i.e. father-
in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner-original
complainant. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2
was solemnized at Ahmedabad on 22.11.2007 and soon after their marriage,
the petitioner and respondent No.2 stayed together at the house of in-laws
of the petitioner and thereafter they went for honeymoon to Bali. On their
return, there was a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2
and the petitioner straightaway went to her parental home. Thereafter, the
petitioner had lodged one FIR before the Satellite Police Station against
respondent Nos.2 to 6 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 34
and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which was
registered as C.R. No.I-274/2008. After completion of the investigation,
respondent Nos.2 to 6 were chargesheeted for the above mentioned offences.
At the time, when the learned CJM was to frame the charge against
respondent Nos.2 to 6, the petitioner submitted an application (Exh.8)
before the learned CJM for an appropriate order directing the Investigating
Officer of Satellite Police Station to further investigate the case with
respect to her ‘stridhan’ properties and the palmtop communicator, stating
that though in the complaint there was a specific case that ‘stridhan’ is
with respondent No.2 and his family members, no efforts were made by the
Investigating Officer to recover the Stridhan.

3. The learned CJM partly allowed the application and directed the
Investigating Officer of the Satellite Police Station to further
investigate the case with respect to the Stridhan and Palmtop Communicator
and submit a report regarding the same within 30 days. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer conducted further investigation and respondent No.2
produced certain ornaments in the Police Station but the petitioner and her
family members refused to take those ornaments which were produced by
submitting that they were not the complete ornaments/stridhan. After
further investigation and necessary inquiry, it was found that no palmtop
was carried by respondent No.2 while going to Bali and therefore the
concerned Investigating Officer opined that nothing was required to be done
with respect to the Palmtop. Thereafter, on the basis of the aforesaid
further investigation, the Police Inspector, Satellite Police Station
submitted the report to the learned CJM pursuant to the order passed by
learned CJM for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C.

4. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application (Exh.47)
requesting learned CJM to call for, from the IO, all statements, documents,
communications and/or processes carried out in compliance to the order of
further investigation dated 12.03.2009 in respect to which reports dated
13.04.2009, 08.05.2009, further report dated 08.05.2009, additional reports
dated 08.05.2009, 23.05.2009, 16.06.2009, 30.06.2009 and 17.09.2009 which
had been tendered before the Court. Learned CJM dismissed the said
application by order dated 30.01.2010.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another application (Ex.55)
before the learned Magistrate for an appropriate order and to direct
further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. with a special
direction that the same be conducted under the direct supervision of an
officer not below the rank of Asstt. Commissioner of Police of zone, within
whose jurisdiction the Satellite Police Station falls, reiterating the same
grievance which was made earlier while submitting the application (Ex.8 and
Ex.47) and submitting that Investigating Officer has failed to recover the
stridhan and the Palmtop. Learned CJM by order dated 07.08.2010 allowed
the said application and directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police of
the zone to hold further investigation with respect to stridhan and Palmtop
and to submit the report within 30 days.

6. The respondents dissatisfied with the above order preferred revision
application before the Sessions Court and the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge
by order dated 20.10.2010 partly allowed the revision application and set
aside that part of the order of the learned CJM by which there was a
specific direction for further investigation with respect to stridhan and
Palmtop, but maintained the order with respect to further investigation by
observing that learned CJM was not justified in directing further
investigation on a particular aspect (Stridhan and Palmtop) and that too by
a particular officer, relying upon decision of the Supreme Court in the
case of Hemant Vs. CBI, reported in (2001) Crl. L.J. (SC) 4190 and the
decision of this Court in Criminal Revision Application No.738/2008 that
the Magistrate should not direct that a particular officer or even an
officer of particular rank should conduct further investigation.
7. The petitioner being aggrieved with the above order passed by
Revisional Court, preferred Special Criminal Application in the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 227 of the Constitution. But the
learned single Judge was pleased to dismiss the same and hence this special
leave petition.

8. We have heard the counsel for the parties as also the contesting
respondent who appeared in person and perused the impugned order passed
by the High Court whereby the learned single Judge has taken note of the
fact that the Revisional Court had directed further investigation by
the concerned officer in charge of the Satellite Police Station which had
the capacity to include every circumstance and thus no prejudice in the
opinion of the learned single Judge would be caused to the petitioner and,
therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned III Addl. Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad dismissing the criminal revision petition was not
required to be interfered with by the High Court.

9. Having considered the sequence of events and all the circumstances,
we agree with the view of the learned single Judge that all steps
pertaining to the investigation of the stridhan property of the
petitioner had been allowed in favour of the petitioner and even suo moto
investigation was conducted by the police which subsequently was
confirmed by the order of the Magistrate. However, as per the averment
of the petitioner the revisional court interfered and disturbed the
course of investigation, but the High Court appears to have correctly
noted that the revisional court has also permitted further investigation by
the concerned officer in charge of the Satellite Police Station in regard
to the complaint of the petitioner alleging non-recovery of her
stridhan property. Thus, whatever was legally possible has already
been allowed in favour of the petitioner and yet she has come up to
this Court by way of this special leave petition. From the attending
circumstances, we are inclined to infer that she has not moved this Court
bonafide but perhaps to teach a lesson to the respondent-husband rather
than recovery of her stridhan property. In any view, if the investigation
conducted by the authorities do not suffer from the lacunae or serious
infirmity, we do not see any reason to issue any further direction to the
court below to take steps in the matter. It goes without saying that
all remedies that may be available to the petitioner in accordance with law
for recovery of her ‘stridhan property’, would surely be made available to
her. But in so far as the impugned order of the High Court is concerned,
the same does not require any interference in our considered view. We,
thus do not find any reason to entertain this special leave petition which
is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.

………………………….J.
(T.S. Thakur)
………………………….J.
(Gyan Sudha Misra)
New Delhi;
April 25, 2014
———————–
8

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,758,121 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,854 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com