http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  490 of 2008

PETITIONER: Mohinder Kaur

RESPONDENT: State of Punjab

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   490 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8213 of 2007)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  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  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 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 the present case were  different.  It was stated that the appellant herself was a retired  police officer who was serving as an inspector of Punjab police.   Her son was residing abroad and she had  transferred/bequeathed her property in favour of her grand  son who is born to another son who is settled abroad. No 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 out to the grand 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 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 interrogate the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

appellant and recover the dowry articles.  Her passport was  also seized and she was not 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 Court are clearly without any  foundation.  The appellant was serving neither as an inspector  nor was she 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 printed out  after death of her husband, she was inducted as a Constable  on compassionate grounds.   

5.      The direction for recovering dowry articles clearly means  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.

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 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 application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.  filed by her.   The directions for seizing the appellant’s passport also could  not have been given 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  articles 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 Das  v. State of W.B. (2005(4)SCC 303).   

10.     Keeping in view the parameters highlighted in Adri  Dharan Das’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 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.