I am torned between the views of various expert members who agree and diagree on views of filing DP3 case for making ex aggregating claim of giving the dowry without demand made on the side of the groom
Kindly give your opinion after seeing the contents laid down by Delhi Courts
I am seeking your opinion whether to file the case for giving Dowry against the party who has been making exaggreagting claim for giving the dowry without demand amde by the groom side and file fake FIR against the groom and his family u/s 498-A,406,323, 506
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 inlaws
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.
___________________________________________
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.
