charge wife and family for giving dowry- DP3 upheld ASJ Kamini Lau Rohini Court Delhi
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU
ASJ-II, NORTH WEST DISTT. ROHINI: DELHI
Crl. Revision No. 354/09
Uma Devi
W/o Sh. Sunil Garg,
D/o Sh. Jai Kumar,
R/o C-451/9, Chandra Quarters,
Rampura, Delhi-35.
Presently residing at
T/367/29, Onkar Nagar-B,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-35.
VERSUS
1. Sunil Garg
S/o Sh. S. C. Garg,
R/o 30, Rajdhani Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-34.
Address given in the complaint
E-1/21, Phase-I,
Budh Vihar, Delhi.
2. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of institution : 24.12.2009
Arguments heard on : 13.05.2010
Date of final order : 02.06.2010
O R D E R
This revision petition has been preferred by the
revisionist/ petitioner Uma Devi the estranged wife of the
respondent no.1, against the order of Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 by
way of which Ld. MM directed the SHO PS Maurya Enclave to
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 1 of 11
conduct investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as
they attracted the commission of cognizable offence under Section
3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The facts leading to the filing of the revision are briefly
stated as under:
A complaint was made by the petitioner/ revisionist
regarding harassment by the respondent and his family on account
of dowry demand, on the basis of which FIR No. 218/09 was
registered at Police Station Keshavpuram. In the said complaint it
was alleged by the petitioner/ revisionist that she was married to
respondent no.1 on 21.4.2008 according to Hindu Rites and
ceremonies at Shubham Vatika, Mundka, Delhi. As per the
allegations prior to the marriage Roka ceremony had taken place on
28.1.2008 and God-Bharai ceremony was conducted on 15.4.2008
at Meri-Maker Banquet Hall, Wazirpur, Delhi and during the Roka
and God-Bharai ceremonies the father of respondent no.1 had
spoken to her father regarding the expenses to be incurred on the
marriage and had demanded that Rs.15 to 16 lacs should be spent
on the marriage and 25% to 30 % more was to be spent on the
amount settled. It is also alleged by the petitioner/ present
revisionist that after the marriage she was being harassed on
account of insufficient dowry and demands were made by her in-
laws on account of which a detail complaint was filed by the
revisionist with the CAW Cell on 16.1.2009, which was after the
almost 8 to 9 months of marriage. It was further alleged that
respondent no.1 and his parents are influential people and despite
her complaint, except registration of the FIR No. 218/09 under
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 2 of 11
Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshavpuram, neither any dowry
articles have been returned nor any arrest has been made.
After the registration of the above FIR the respondent
no.1 who is the husband of the petitioner filed a complaint under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM alleging that the
complaint of the present petitioner itself reflected that offences
under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been committed. It
was alleged by the respondent no.1 that since the petitioner before
this court has already alleged in her complaint on the basis of which
the FIR was registered, that pursuant to the demand by the family of
the respondent, the father of the petitioner fulfilled their demands.
The Ld. MM taking into account the aforesaid directed the
investigations and now being aggrieved by the same the petitioner
has approached this court alleging that in the complaint filed by the
respondent u/s 156 (3) Cr. P.C, he had intentionally given wrong
address as L-425, Shakarpur Colony, New Delhi-34 whereas he is
in-fact residing with his parents at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura,
Delhi and now in the complaint on the basis of which the impugned
order has been passed, he has given another false address i.e. E-
1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.
The Revisionist has also assailed the order of Ld. MM
on the ground that it is against the law and facts. It is pleaded that
the revisionist was residing earlier at Rampura, and now at Onkar
Nagar, Tri Nagar and the petitioner after her marriage had resided
with respondent no. 1 and her in-laws at 30, Rajdhani Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi and no incident has happened within the
jurisdiction of PS Maurya Enclave and the respondent no.1 has
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 3 of 11
intentionally mentioned the police station Maurya Enclave in his
complaint and the order passed on the said complaint is having no
territorial jurisdiction. It is alleged that the impugned order has
been passed on the basis of the false facts as a counter blast and as
such is liable to he set aside. It is pleaded that the respondent no.1
and his relatives have been causing mental and physical harassment
to her in respect of which FIR No.218/09 under Section
498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshav Puram has been registered. It is
further pleaded that the offences for which directions have been
given are not made out against her and her relations and as such the
impugned order may be set aside as no specialized investigation is
required to prove the allegations for commission of an offence
under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has
been filed. The trial court record has been called which I have duly
perused. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments
filed on behalf of the revisionist and the authorities relied upon by
the parties, which are as under:
1. Sabir Vs. Jaswant and Others (2003) Vol. (1)
RCR (Criminal) 479.
2. Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001
(Vol. I) RCR (Criminal) 83.
3. Pawan Verma Vs. SHO PS Model Town & Ors.
2009 (Vol. 2) JCC 1000, Delhi High Court.
4. Kalia Prem Rattan Vs. State of Punjab, 2000
(Vol.1), RCR (Criminal) 769 (Punjab & Haryana
High Court).
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 4 of 11
5.Trisuns Chemicals Industry Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal
and Others, (1999) Vol. 8, SCC, 686.
6. Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007)
DMC 545.
7. Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001,
AIR, SCW 189.
Before proceeding further to decide the present revision
on merits, it is necessary to observe that the order of Ld. Magistrate
directing the police to investigate on the basis of the allegations
made in a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can always be
challenged in revision and therefore, the present revision petition is
maintainable against the order of the Ld. MM.
The first challenge to the impugned order is on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. MM to entertain the
complaint. In this regard it may be observed that the present
revision is the outcome of the order passed by the Ld. MM dated
21.10.2009 on a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by
the respondent. On that aspect it is necessary to observe that
provisions of Sections 190, 193, 179, 177 Cr. PC, are very clear.
The arguments that the Ld. Magistrate taking cognizance should
have the territorial jurisdiction to try the case as well, is on the face
of it erroneous. The provisions of Section 177 and Section 179
Cr.PC do not restrict the power of any court of Magistrate to
take cognizance of the offence and the only restriction
contained in Section 190 Cr. PC is that the power to take
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 5 of 11
cognizance is subject to the provisions of this Chapter. Any
Metropolitan Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of
any offence, no matter whether the offence has been committed
within his territorial jurisdiction or not. There is nothing in
Chapter-IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impair the
power of Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the
offence on the strength of any territorial jurisdiction. The
aspect of territorial jurisdiction would become relevant only when
the question of inquiry or trial arises. Therefore, under these
circumstances, I hereby hold that the Ld. Trial Court being the
Metropolitan Magistrate, has power to take cognizance of the
offence even if the offence was not committed within his territorial
jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction becomes relevant
only after during the post cognizance stage.
Before proceeding further to discuss the validity of the
impugned order on merits, it is necessary to discuss the existing
statutory law. Dowry Prohibition Act, is a welfare legislation
which aims at curtailing and abolishing the vice of dowry.
Whenever the valuable security has been given as a consideration
for marriage or for continuation of marriage for a good and happy
relationship, then under such circumstances an act of giving or
taking of valuable securities are both covered by the Act. (Ref.:
Inder Sen Vs. Sinte, 1988, Criminal Law Journal, 1116). Dowry
is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver there can be no taker
and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the
giver and taker have been made liable (Under Section 3 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act) apart from the fact that even demand for
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 6 of 11
dowry made is punishable (Under Section 4 of the Act). In a case
where it is evident that there was a demand of dowry even before
the marriage and pursuant to such demand, dowry was given as
consideration of marriage, all persons making such demand for
dowry and those giving valuable security as a consideration for
marriage or for its continuance as well as those receiving this
valuable security would be guilty under this Act. It is not possible
to leave one and book another. Therefore, it is only that
interpretation which is in-consonance with the object sought to be
attained by the act that has to be adopted and nothing else would
suffice.
Numerous social welfare legislations have been enacted
in favour of women and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is one such
legislation denouncing traditions and customary practices
derogatory to women. It is unfortunate that this legislation has been
reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is the
fact that it is none else but the family of the women (involved in the
marriage) who is responsible for non accomplishment of this
legislation. Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received
under the pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this Social
Welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is ruthlessly
implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social
compulsions. This has become all the more necessary in order to
check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws.
It has been observed that a large number of customary
gifts are exchanged at the time of marriage. These gifts fall outside
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 7 of 11
the purview of dowry in case if they are Istridhan and find a
mention in the list prepared and signed by both the parties (the
family of the girl and boy) as required under the Dowry Prohibition
Rules. However, expensive gifts given to relatives which do not
fall within the definition of Istridhan are taxable in the hands of the
recipient, in case if the value of the gift which would be a transfer
for inadequate consideration exceeds the statutory limit as provided
under the Income Tax Act. Also, in case of gift of any immovable
property, the same would require a compulsory registration. It is,
therefore, necessary for the courts of law to ensure that due inquiry
and investigations are got conducted not only with regard to the
source of income of the person giving dowry but also as to whether
these transactions are duly reflected in the Wealth Tax returns of
both the Donor and the Donee. Further, in case if it is established
that expensive gifts (i.e. transfer for inadequate consideration) were
given to relatives (beyond the stipulated limit), the competent
authority be informed so as to ensure a proper fiscal benefit to the
government by way of tax from recipient of such a gift.
Coming now to the ground raised by the Revisionist that
the order of the Ld. MM is against the law and facts. I may observe
that the case of the present petitioner is that there was a demand of
dowry by the respondent no.1 and his family even prior to her
marriage. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner and even
in her revision petition before this court she has alleged that there
were discussions between her father and father of the respondent
no.1 between the roka and godbharai ceremonies, wherein certain
demands were made. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations FIR
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 8 of 11
No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC, PS Keshav Puram
has already been registered on the basis of the complaint given by
the petitioner against respondent no.1 and his family, which is
under investigation. While the said investigations were pending,
the respondent against whom allegations have been made by the
petitioner in the main FIR, approached the court in the complaint
under Section 156 (3) for proceedings against the present petitioner
and her family for the various offences committed by him under the
Dowry Prohibition Act and the Ld. MM vide the impugned order
dated 21.10.09 directed the SHO concerned to carry out
investigation into the allegations made which disclosed the
commission of a cognizable offence.
In the present case, on the basis of the complaint given
by the present petitioner, an FIR bearing No. 218/09, PS Keshav
Puram had already been registered. Another complaint has now
been given by the accused husband of petitioner for registration of
counter FIR against the family of the petitioner who are alleged to
have given dowry pursuant to the demand raised by the family of
the husband even before the marriage. This being so, it is not
possible for the Ld. Magistrate under the given circumstances to
make inquiries with regard to the correctness of the allegations
regarding giving or taking of dowry which can only be got inquired
into and investigated by the investigating agency which is already
investigating the complaint given by the present petitioner alleging
harassment on account of insufficient dowry on the basis of which
the FIR has been already registered.
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09 Page 9 of 11
Directions of the High Court are the laws declared
binding all subordinate courts. While dealing with a similar case
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has in the
case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545, observed that
Section 3 of the Act lays down a punishment for giving and taking
dowry and therefore not only is it necessary for the courts to insist
upon the compliance of the rules framed under the Act and draw
adverse inference where these rules are not followed, but also to
ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted in all
such cases which come before it with allegations of demand of
dowry....... Whenever it is noticed that unaccounted cash amounts
or expensive gifts are given at the time of marriage as
consideration there of, then it is necessary for the courts of the Ld.
Magistrates to bring these facts to the notice of the government
authorities including the Income Tax authority so that not only
the sources of the income of the person allegedly giving dowry but
also the correctness of the allegations with regard to giving dowry
are got verified and both the giver and the taker are brought to law.
This being so, all subordinate courts are bound by the aforesaid
directions and are under an obligation to get an inquiry conducted
and bring these facts to the notice of the Government Authorities
particularly the Income Tax authorities.
The incidents of misuse and abuse of special provisions
of dowry harassment are increasing by the day. The already
overburdened judicial system cannot permit its misuse and abuse
and it has, therefore, become necessary for the courts to verify the
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc.,CR No. 354/09 Page 10 of 11
correctness of such allegations so as to eliminate the false
complaints made in this regard at its inception. In view of the
aforesaid, I find no ground to intervene. The revision petition is
hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The trial court record be
sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this order be
placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure strict
compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the
case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
and Ors. (Supra) while conducting investigations in cases of dowry
harassment.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. Kamini Lau)
on 02.06.2010 ASJ/NW-II, Rohini/2.6.10
Uma Devi Vs. Sunil Garg Etc., CR No. 354/09
