POOJA ABHISHEK GOYALversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                     2014] 3 S.C.R. 855


                 POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL                             A
                               V.
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
      (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7121 of 2011)

                       APRIL 25, 2014
                                                                  B
     J:T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.173(8) - Dowry
case fifed by petitioner-wife against husband and in-laws -
Charge-sheet - At the time of framing of charges, petitioner C
filed application seeking further investigation of 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' was with husband and his family
members, no efforts were made by Investigating Officer to D
recover it - Further investigation ordered - Ornaments
produced by husband but refusal by petitioner to take them
on the ground that they were not the complete ornaments -
Investigating Officer finally gave report that nothing was
required to be done with respect to the Palmtop - Thereafter, E
petitioner submitted another application before Magistrate for
further investigation uls. 173(8) 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 Police Station falls, reiterating the F
same grievance which was made earlier - Magistrate allowed
the said application - Revision application by respondents
partly allowed observing that Magistrate was not justified in
directing further investigation on a particular aspect (Stridhan
and Palmtop) and that too by a particular officer - High Court G
upheld the order- SLP - Held: High Court was right in holding
that all steps pertaining to investigation of stridhan property
had been allowed in favour of the petitioner and even suo moto
investigation was conducted by the police which subsequently
                              855                                  H
    856      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A was confirmed by the order of the Magistrate - Thus, whatever
  was legally possible was already allowed in favour of petitioner
  - The attending circumstances showed that she had not
  moved the Court bonafide but perhaps to teach a lesson to
  the respondent-husband rather than recovery of her stridhan
B property - In any view, if the investigation conducted by the
  authorities did not suffer from the lacunae or serious infirmity,
  there is no reason to issue any further direction to the court
  below to take steps in the matter - However, all remedies in
  accordance with law for recovery of 'stridhan property', would
c be available to the petitioner.
          Hemant v. CBI, (2001) Crl. L.J. (SC) 4190 - relied on.

                          Case Law Reference:

D         (2001) Crl. L.Jo (SC) 4190        relied on       Para 6

          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
    Petition (Criminal) No. 7121 of 2011

      From the judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 of the
E High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal
  Application No. 2145 of 2010.

        S.B. Sanyal, Huzefa Ahmadi, Abhijat P. Medh, Rauf
    Rahim, Yadunandan Bansal for the appellant.
F
       Jesal, Hemantika Wahi, S. Panda for the respondents.
    Respondent-in-person.

          The order of the Court was delivered by

G         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
H
POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL v. ·STATE OF GUJARAT & 857 .
        ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]
petitioner and upheld the order·passed by learned 3rd                  A
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 ad'"'1ission itself after which the order
had been reserved.                                                     B

      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 C
marriage between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 was
solemnized at Ahmadabad 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 D
petitioner straightaway went to her parental home. Thereafter,
the petitioner had lodged one FIR before the Satellite Police
S~ation 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. E
No.1-274/2008. 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 F
appropria~ 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 G
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
                                                                       H
    858      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 3 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
  r~o.2 while going to Bali and therefore the concerned
c lnvesti!~ating 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.
0
         4. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted an application
    (Exh.47) requesting learned CJM to call for, from the 10, all
    statements, documents, communications and/or processes
    carried out in compliance to the order of further investigation
E   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
F   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
G 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
H
POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL v. STATE OF GUJARAT & 859
        ORS. [GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J.]

Officer has failed to recover the stridhan and the Palmtop.           A
Learned CJM by order dated 07 .08.2010 allowed the said
application and df rected the Assistant Commissioner of Police
of the zone to hold further investigation with respect to stridhan
and Palmtop and to submit the reportwithin 30 days.
                                                                      B
      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      c
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,          D
reported in (2001) Crl. LJ. (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.
                                                                      E
      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              F
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              G
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
                                                                      H
    860      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 3 S.C.R.

A caused to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order
  passed by the learned Ill Addi. 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
8
    c[rcumstances, 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
C   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
D   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
E   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
F   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
G   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.

    D.G.                                             SLP dismissed.
H