2008 Supreme(SC) 150

2008(1) Supreme 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Ran Singh and Anr. — Petitioners
versus
State of Haryana and Anr. — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 222 of 2008
Decided on : 30-01-2008

Important Point
1.Reasons introduce clarity in an order.
2.There are three occasions related to dowry. One is before marriage, second is at time of marriage and third “at any time” after marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of said parties”. Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by expression “dowry”.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 401 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 - Complaint filed by complainant u\s 498A,406,323,506, 148,149 IPC alleging harassment of his daughter by accused husband and his relatives on account of dowry demand – Revisions petitions there against by accused persons - Sessions judge held that no case was made out against accused persons and directed that proceedings would continue only against Accused husband – Revision petition – Allowed by High Court – Appeal – Plea of appellants that High Court failed to notice that some customary articles were given to relatives of bridegroom and that could not be covered by expression “dowry” - There are three occasions related to dowry - One is before marriage, second is at time of marriage and third “at any time” after marriage - The third occasion may appear to be unending period - But the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of said parties” - Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by expression “dowry” - High Court erred while observing that present appellants “could misappropriate” and “who can practice cruelty” - Conclusions to say least held to be presumptuous - 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 High Court was interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought to have indicated reasons necessitating such interference - That had not been done and on contrary on presumptuous conclusions order of Sessions Judge had been set aside - Reasons introduce clarity in an order - On plainest consideration of justice, High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind - Absence of reasons rendered High Court’s judgment unsustainable - It is to be noted that the High Court itself had held that there was an attempt to rope in many persons and it did not find any merit or challenge to discharge of married sister and brother - Impugned order of High Court been unsustainable held liable to be set aside - Appeal allowed.(Paras 7 to 12)

       2001 (8) SCC 633 — relied upon.

       1971 (1) All E.R. 1148 — referred.

       Facts of the case:-

       1.Complaint was filed by complainant u\s 498A,406,323,506, 148,149 IPC herein in the instant case alleging harassment of his daughter by accused husband and his relatives on account of dowry demand. Revisions petitions there against were filed by accused persons. Sessions judge held that no case was made out against accused persons and directed that proceedings would continue only against Accused husband. Revision petition there against was allowed by High Court.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that there are three occasions related to dowry One is before marriage, second is at time of marriage and third “at any time” after marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are “in connection with the marriage of said parties”. Other payments which are customary payments e.g. given at time of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different societies are not covered by expression “dowry”. High Court erred while observing that present appellants “could misappropriate” and “who can practice cruelty”. Conclusions to say least held to be presumptuous. 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 High Court was interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought to have indicated reasons necessitating such interference. That had not been done and on contrary on presumptuous conclusions order of Sessions Judge had been set aside. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind. Absence of reasons rendered High Court’s judgment unsustainable. It is to be noted that the High Court itself had held that there was an attempt to rope in many persons and it did not find any merit or challenge to discharge of married sister and brother. Impugned order of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside. Appeal was allowed partly.

       Result : Appeal allowed partly.