Judgment

VARADARAJAN, J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 283 of 1981, quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1634 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Anti-Corruption), Pune. The application in the High Court was filed by the respondents in this appeal, who are the two accused in that criminal case, for quashing the criminal proceedings as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, issuing processes against them in that case.

2. The appellant L. V. Jadhav was the first respondent while State of Maharashtra was the second respondent in the application before the High Court. The first respondent Shankarao Abasaheb Pawar is the father of the second respondent Pradeep Shankarrao Pawar. There was a proposal to get the appellants daughter Anita., a Science Graduate, married to the second respondent, a double Graduate in Engineering, working in the United States. After Anita and the second respondent approved each other there was an engagement ceremony on 12-6-1978 at Pune and the marriage was performed at that place on 19-6-1979 after the first respondent came from the United States in May 1979.

3. According to the appellants complaint, when the marriage ceremonies were in progress on 19-6-1979, both the respondents demanded a cash of Rs. 50,000/- from the appellant in the presence of respectable persons under the pretext that the money was required for the transport of Anita and the second respondent to the United States. The respondents told the appellant that if he did not comply with that demand by way of dowry further ceremonies would not be completed. Some respectable persons who were present at that time persuaded the respondents to complete the marriage ceremonies and formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were over. The second respondent alone went to the United States in July 1979 as the passport and visa for Anita had to be arranged which was done sometime later while Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent. Anita was not sent to the United States and the respondents continued to persist in their demand for the money when she was staying, in the first respondents house. The appellant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 5-6-1980 against both the respondents, alleging that they had committed an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by demanding the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as mentioned above. This was done after the appellant had obtained the necessary sanction required by the proviso to Section 4 of the Act. The Judicial Magistrate verified the complaint and issued processes to the respondents and sent summonses to the United States where the first respondent was staying with the second respondent at that time.

4. The respondents challenged the Magistrates order issuing summonses to them by filing their application in the High Court. The learned Single Judge before whom the application originally came up for consideration referred the matter to a Division Bench. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents before the High Court was that even if the allegations made in the appellants complaints were true no offence under Section 4 of the Act is disclosed, whereas for the appellant it was contended before the High Court that the aforesaid demand for Rs. 50,000/- would constitute an offence under S. 4.

5. Reading the definition of "dowry" given in Section 2 of the Act into S. 4, the learned Judges held that for bringing a case under S. 4 of the Act, there must be a demand for dowry as such, that is, for any property agreed to be given as consideration for the marriage, and that as there is no allegation in the complaint that the appellant had agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and the respondents thereafter demanded the same no offence under S. 4 of the Act is disclosed in the complaint. In that view the lea