CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 222 of 2008

PETITIONER:
Ran Singh and Anr.

RESPONDENT:
State of Haryana and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2008

BENCH:
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3089 of 2006)

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
allowing the Revision Petition filed under Section 401 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’) which
was filed before it by Kurra Ram since deceased and
represented by his daughter i.e. respondent No.2 in the
present appeal.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A complaint was filed by the aforesaid Kurra Ram
alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) by Jaswant-son in law and husband
of his daughter-Saroj, Ran Singh and Raj Bala, the present
appellants who were father and mother of Jaswant and two
others namely, Jai Singh and Suman, the brother and married
sister of Jaswant.

It was stated in the complaint that Saroj got married to
Jaswant on 14.4.1994 and that she was harassed for dowry by
the aforesaid accused persons. Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, after recording preliminary
evidence of the complainant, decided to proceed against all the
accused persons for the alleged offences. Separate Revision
Petitions were filed by Jai Singh, Ran Singh and Suman taking
the stand that there is no offence made out so far as they are
concerned. Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no
case was made out against aforesaid accused persons and
directed that proceedings would continue only against
Jaswant. The order dated 4.11.2003 disposing of the revisions
in the aforesaid manner was challenged by Kurra Ram in the
Revision Petition before the High Court. It was held by High
Court that there is no ground to proceed against Jai Singh and
Suman who may just be living in the house, but may not be
interfering in matrimonial problems of Saroj and Jaswant.
Therefore, the order of the Additional Sessions Judge was
upheld to that extent. But so far as the present appellants are
concerned the High Court inter alia observed as follows:

“However, when articles of dowry are handed
over to elder members in the family that will
mean that those were handed over to Ran
Singh and Raj Bala i.e. father and mother of
the husband who could misappropriate. It is
they who can practice cruelty for less dowry or
otherwise.”

(Underlined for emphasis)

The High Court noted that police had earlier registered a
case and had sent cancellation report and thereafter the
complaint was filed by Kurra Ram who appeared as PW-1, as
his son Rajesh appeared as PW-2 and Saroj as PW-3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
High Court failed to notice that some customary articles were
given to relatives of the bridegroom. That cannot be covered by
the expression ‘dowry’. High Court noticed the fact that the
complainant tried to rope even a married sister who was living
far away and the brother, which shows the tendency to falsely
implicate them. Reference is also made to the following
observations of the High Court:

“..They are close relatives but the fact remains
that an effort is made by the complainant to
implicate as many persons as possible, in such
matters.”

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and the
complainant submitted that it is not a case where the
Additional Sessions Judge should have interfered and the High
Court has therefore rightly set aside the order dated 4.11.2003
which was impugned before it.

6. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short
‘Dowry Act’) defines “dowry” as under:-

Section 2. Definition of ‘dowry’  In this Act,
‘dowry’ means any property or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly 

(a) by one party to a marriage to the
other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a
marriage or by any other person, to
either party to the marriage or to any
other person,

at or before or any time after the marriage in
connection with the marriage of the said
parties, but does not include dower or mehr
in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
personal law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby declared that any presents made at
the time of a marriage to either party to the
marriage in the form of cash, ornaments,
clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed
to be dowry within the meaning of this
section, unless they are made as
consideration for the marriage of the said
parties.

Explanation II- The expression ‘valuable
security’ has the same meaning in Section 30
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).”

7. The word “dowry” is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry
Act. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is
before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the
third “at any time” after the marriage. The third occasion may
appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are “in
connection with the marriage of the said parties”. Other
payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the
time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in
different societies are not covered by the expression “dowry”.
(See Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab (2001 (8) SCC 633))
.

8. The High Court has fallen in grave error while observing
that present appellants “could misappropriate” and “who can
practice cruelty”. The conclusions to say the least are
presumptuous. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by a well
reasoned order had held that there was no material to show
that demand for any dowry was made and an attempt was
made to rope in many persons. When the High Court was
interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought
to have indicated the reasons necessitating such interference.
That has not been done and on the contrary on presumptuous
conclusions the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge
has been set aside.

9. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered
the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.

10. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons
for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The
“inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a
judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

11. It is to be noted that the High Court itself has held that
there was an attempt to rope in many persons and it did not
find any merit or challenge to the discharge of the married
sister and the brother.

12. Above being the position, the impugned order of the High
Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. We make it clear
that we have not expressed any opinion on merits so far as
husband Jaswant is concerned.

13. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Summary: Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CRL.M.C.7262/2006 on 23.02.2007 in Smt. Neera Singh Vs State and Ors held that “vague allegations made against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge”.

Other nice inferences from the judgment include – 1) taunting for bringing insufficient dowry does not amount to an offense under Section 498-A of the IPC, 2)verification of the source and flow of funds should be done if dowry is allegedly given, and 3) wife and her parents should be prosecuted for giving dowry.

Full judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12.02.2007

Date of Decision: February 23, 2007

CRL.M.C.7262/2006

23.02.2007

Smt. Neera Singh ….. Petitioner

Through:Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. V.K. Singh,

Advocates

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)andORS…..Respondents

Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for respondent

Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advocates for State.

CORAM:

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES.

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J

1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband’s brothers) of the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:

?Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and consequent harassment for not meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her husband and in laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of of dowry. There is not a single allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant was ever harassed with respect to further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie case under Section 498A is not made out against accused Bishan Pal, Santosh Devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh.?

2. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material observed as under:

? In the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The

Ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband

only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. The Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract Section 498A. There are not specific allegations with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh.?

3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father ?You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow?. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ? the Act?) against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition(Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:

?2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride. (2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom. (3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)- (a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage; (b) shall be in writing; (c) shall contain:- (i) a brief descripttion of each present; (ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and (iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a descripttion of such relationship. (d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.

5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.

6. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of allegations against her husband regarding beating, that her husband was having illicit relationship with 35 girls; he forced her to write suicide note, abused her, taunted her, threatened and told her that he was getting another bride of more richer family while she was in Rewari with her husband and she made telephone call to her parents who came to Rewari and took her to parental home. She had also given phone to one of her friends Jigyasa. A perusal of the statement of Jigyasa would show that she told Jigyasa that it was her husband who was torturing her and behaving with cruelty. However, in her complaint, she made

vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members. The statement

made by her and other witnesses have been scrutinized by me, except vague allegations and allegations of taunting, there are no allegations of perpetuating cruelty on her by any of the four respondents in order to compel her to bring more dowry or any particular items.

7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no reason to disagree with the order of two Courts below. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

February 23, 2007 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

• 	Simple injuries not sufficient