IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal proceeding under Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. Banumathi, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010, whereby the High Court declined to quash the proceedings against appellants No.1 to 6 in C.C. No. 532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 pending before Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-First appellant is working as an Engineer in G.E. India Technology Company at Bangalore. Appellants No.2 and 3 are the parents, appellant No.4 is widowed sister and appellants No.5 and 6 are the sisters of appellant No.1. Marriage of first appellant and Syamala Rani was performed at Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and after marriage, Syamala Rani was residing at Bangalore with her husband-appellant No.1. Syamala Rani died on 06.09.2008 under suspicious circumstances and a case was registered in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B, 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at H.A.L. Police Station, Bangalore City. On completion of investigation in the said case, chargesheet was filed against the appellants No.1 to 6 and the case was committed to Sessions Court vide committal order dated 29.12.2008 and was taken on file as S.C. No.79 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Second respondent-father of Syamala Rani filed a private complaint against the appellants under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that he had paid dowry amount and other articles which were presented as dowry to the appellants on their demand and the same were not returned. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in C.C. No.532 of 2009.

4. The appellants then preferred a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the complaint i.e. C.C. No. 532 of 2009 contending that the complaint does not disclose an offence and that FIR No.1492 of 2008 was already registered against the appellants at Bangalore city. The High Court vide the impugned order dismissed the petition filed by the appellants holding that the offences alleged in the previous case in S.C. No.79 of 2009 emanating from the FIR No.1492 of 2008 and the subsequent complaint in C.C.No.532 of 2009 are not one and the same as the previous case was registered under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the subsequent case is registered under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is independent of the previous case. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint as the previous case was already registered against the appellants in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending trial in Sessions Case No.79 of 2009 at Bangalore city and hence the subsequent complaint is not sustainable. It was further submitted that the subsequent complaint C.C.No.532 of 2009 emanates from the same cause of action and the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the complaint is an afterthought for wrecking vengeance on the appellants.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the complaint case in C.C. No.532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the previous case i.e. FIR No.1492 of 2008 and the pendency of the said case before the Sessions Court, Bangalore shall not affect the complaint filed under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was submitted that even after death of Syamala Rani, the appellants threatened the complainant and his family members and the complainant-respondent No.2 had led several mediati