advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

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


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.