Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Special Leave Petition  (Crl.) No.7121/2011

POOJA ABHISHEK GOYAL           .. Petitioner  

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.         ..  

Respondents  

O R D E R

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 petitioner and upheld the order passed by learned  

3rd Additional Sessions Judge dated 20.10.2010 passed  

in  Criminal  Revision  Application  No.70/2010.   The

Page 2

petitioner and the contesting respondent and all  other  

counsel  in  the  matter  were  heard  at  the  stage  of  

admission  itself  after  which  the  order  had  been  

reserved.

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 marriage between the petitioner and  

the respondent No.2 was solemnized at Ahmedabad 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  petitioner  straightaway  went  to  her  

parental home.  Thereafter, the petitioner had lodged  

one  FIR  before  the  Satellite  Police  Station  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  

2

Page 3

C.R.  No.I-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  appropriate  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  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 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  

3

Page 4

the  Police  Station  but  the  petitioner  and  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 No.2 while going  

to  Bali  and  therefore  the  concerned  Investigating  

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.

4. In  the  meantime,  the  petitioner  submitted  an  

application (Exh.47) requesting learned CJM to call for,  

from  the  IO,  all  statements,  documents,  

communications  and/or  processes  carried  out  in  

compliance to the order of further investigation dated  

12.03.2009  in  respect  to  which  reports  dated  

13.04.2009,  08.05.2009,  further  report  dated  

4

Page 5

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  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 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  Officer  has  failed  to  

recover the stridhan and the Palmtop.  Learned CJM by  

order  dated  07.08.2010  allowed  the  said  application  

and directed the Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police of  

the zone to hold further investigation with respect to  

5

Page 6

stridhan and Palmtop and to submit the report within  

30 days.

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 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, reported in (2001)  

Crl.  L.J.  (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.

6

Page 7

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 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 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 caused  

to the petitioner  and, therefore,  the impugned order  

passed  by  the  learned  III  Addl.  Sessions  Judge,  

Ahmedabad dismissing the criminal  revision  petition  

was  not  required  to  be  interfered  with  by  the  High  

Court.  

7

Page 8

9. Having considered the sequence   of events and  

all  the circumstances,  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 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 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 are inclined to infer  

that she has not moved this Court bonafide but perhaps  

to  teach  a  lesson  to  the  respondent-husband  rather  

8

Page 9

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 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  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.  

………………………….J. (T.S. Thakur)

………………………….J. (Gyan  Sudha Misra)

New Delhi; April 25, 2014  

9

Page 10

1