Mohinder Kaur v. State of Punjab
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a F
learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
dismissing the petition filed in terms of Section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.').
3. The appellant had sought for protection in terms of
aforesaid provision in FIR No. 105 dated 15.8.2007 registered G
at the Police Station Bhogpur, District Jalandhar. The
complainant had alleged that she was married to Ranjit Singh,
son of the appellant on 23.10.2002. The said Ranjeet Singh
went abroad in February, 2002 and came back after about one
year. Alleging that the complainant was harassing her for brining H
A insufficient dowry, the complaint was lodged in the police station.
The appellant filed a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
protection, The High Court observed that ordinarily in such cases
the court is inclined to grant protection against arrest to family
members of husband of the complainant, however the facts of
B the present case were different. It was stated that the appellant
herself was a retired po.lice officer who was serving as an
inspector of Punjab police. Her son was residing abroad and
she had transferred/bequ,eathed her property in favour of her
grand son who is born to another son who is settled abroad. No
c part of the immovable property has been given to grand daughter
born to the complainant. The High Court, therefore, concluded
that the complainant and her minor daughter were left without
any source of livelihood. It was noted that serious allegations
were made against the appellant. The hostile treatment meted
0 out to the gr~nd daughter speaks loudly that the allegations
leveled carry prima facie substance. After making these
observations, the High Court also accepted the contention that
the appellant being a recently retired police officer, the local
police were hob-nobbing with her and the investigations were
not being done properly. The High Court therefore, dismissed
E the petition. But at the same time it directed the Senior
Superintendent of Police, .Jalandhar to depute a fairly senior
police officer to monitor the on-going investigation and take all
lawful measures to interro~iate the appellant and recover the
dowry articles. Her passport was also seized and she was not
F to be permitted to go abroad without the permission of the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
conclusions of the High Cou1i are clearly without any foundation.
The appellant was serving neither as an inspector nor was she
G retired recently. She was serving as a constable and had retired
nearly 10 years back i.e. in May, 1999. Further it is inconceivable
that a retired constable who had retired 10 years back would
have influence over the police officials to render the investigation
ineffective. It is pointed out after death of her husband, she was
inducted as a Constable on compassionate grounds.
MOHINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
21
5. The direction for recovering dowry articles clearly means A
as if certain dowry articles were there. It is therefore submitted
that all the directions are insupportable.
6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand
submitted that looking into the gravity of the accusation order
has been passed. B
7. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
the High Court seems to have completely acted on materials
which do not support the conclusions. By way of illustration, it
can be said that the appellant was not serving as an inspector c
but was a constable who had retired about a decade back.
Therefore the conclusion of the High Court that she was in a
position to make the investigation ineffective does not have any
foundation. The other directions given like recovery of dowry
articles etc. need not have been given while dealing with an 0 application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by her. The directions
for seizing the appellant's passport also could not have been
given on a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by her.
8~ The directions regarding deputation of a senior police
officer to monitor the investigation and/or recover the dowry E
articles and to seize her passport stand deleted.
9. The parameters for exercising of power under Section
438 Cr.P.C. has been highlighted by this Court in Adri Dharan
Oas v: State of WB. (2005(4)SCC 303).
10. Keeping in view the parameters highlighted in Adri
Oharan Oas's case (supra), we direct in case the appellant
surrenders before the concerned court and moves for bail the
application shall be disposed of expeditiously preferably on the
date it is filed. We make it clear that we have not expressed.any G
opinion on the acceptability of the prayer for bail to be made in
terms of the aforesaid direction.
11. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeal allowed. H