MOHINDER KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 5 S.C.R. 18 
cl 
A 
MOHINDER KAUR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Civil Appeal No. 490 of 2008) 
B 
MARCH 14, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J 
1 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - FIR on 
allegation of demand of dowry - Anticipatory bail - Sought by 
c accused - High Court denying bail and directing recovery of 
dowry articles from the accused - Confiscation of her passport 
a/so directed - On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, finding 
of the High Court was without any basis- Direction for recovery 
of dowry articles and seizure of passport is not permissible in 
D an application under s. 438. 
Appellant filed an application before High Court 
seeking protection u/s 438 Cr.P.C. FIR was lo'fged on the 
complaint of her daughter-in-law alleging demand of 
dowry against her. High Court dismissed the application 
E observing interalia that as she was retired police officer 
(Inspector) and as she had recently retired, she was 
influencing proper investigation of the case. Court 
directed deputation of a senior police officer to monitor 
the investigation, and rec1over dowry articles from her. It 
F also directed seizure of h1::!r passport. 
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that 
,. 
order of High Court had no basis as she was merely a 
police constable who had retired 10 years back. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court seems to have completely 
acted on materials which do not support the conclusions. 
The conclusion of the High Court that she was in a 
p.Psition to make the investigation ineffective does not 
H 
18 
1 
i 
MOHINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
19 
have any foundation. The other directions given like A 
recovery of dowry articles etc. need not have been given 
while dealing with an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 
filed by her. The directions for seizing the appellant's 
passport also could not have been given in a petition under 
Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by her. The directions regarding 8 
deputation of a senior police officer to monitor the 
investigation and/or recover the dowry articles and to 
seize her passport stand deleted. [Paras 7 and 8] 
[21-B, C, D, E] 
Adri Dharan Das v. State of WB 2005 (4) SCC 303 -
C 
relied on. 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 490 of 2008. 
From the Judgment and final order dated 15.11.2007 of D 
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. 
Misc. No. 47960-M/2007 
Manmohan Singh, Jasbir Singh Malik, Shilpi, Rajiv Joshi 
and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant. 
Madhu Tewatia, A.AG., Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 
20 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
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 substa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.