LexPOOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2014] 3 S.C.R. 855 POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7121 of 2011) APRIL 25, 2014 J:T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] A B 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. D Hemant v. CBI, (2001) Crl. L.J. (SC) 4190 - relied on. Case Law Reference: (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. F S.B. Sanyal, Huzefa Ahmadi, Abhijat P. Medh, Rauf Rahim, Yadunandan Bansal for the appellant. 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 H 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 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 w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.