MOHINDER KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                           (2008] 5 S.C.R. 18

                                                                         cl

A                         MOHINDER KAUR
                                  v.
                         STATE OF PUNJAB
                   (Civil Appeal No. 490 of 2008)
                          MARCH 14, 2008
B
                                                                              1
        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.J

          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
    an application under s. 438.
D
       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
           MOHINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB                       19
                 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

    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.
1
    Misc. No. 47960-M/2007
         Manmohan Singh, Jasbir Singh Malik, Shilpi, Rajiv Joshi
    and S.K. Sabharwal for the Appellant.
                                                                        E
         Madhu Tewatia, A.AG., Kuldip Singh for the Respondent.
         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,
i   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
    out to the gr~nd daughter speaks loudly that the allegations
0
    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.
H
         MOHINDER KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB                      21
               [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

      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).
                                                                     F
      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