The central legal point established in the judgment is the wider interpretation of the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, emphasizing the broader scope of the definition of 'dowry' and the elements of the offence under Section 304-B.

Z.A. Haq, J.

1. Heard Shri N.B. Jawade, A.P.P. for the petitioner and Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, advocate for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioner - State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application (Exh. No.108) praying for framing of additional charge under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the prosecution, the marriage between respondent no.1 - Kishor and deceased Shubhangi was solemnized on 26th May, 2009 and the respondents had demanded Rs. 5,50,000/- for performing marriage. It is alleged that after the solemnization of marriage, the respondents (accused) continued their demand of dowry and treated deceased Shubhangi with cruelty. It is alleged that the complainant - father of deceased Shubhangi, had fulfilled the demand of respondents and had given Rs. 1,00,000/-, however, the respondents demanded money from the father of deceased Shubhangi, repeatedly. It is alleged that due to constant demand of money by the respondents, physical harassment, mental torture and cruelty, deceased Shubhangi committed suicide on 19th September, 2010. On these accusations, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class who committed the matter to Sessions Court. The Sessions Court framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial proceeded and the prosecution examined ten witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is recorded and at the stage of arguments, the petitioner filed the application (Exh. No.108) praying that additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act be framed. This application is rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order.

4. Shri Jawade, learned A.P.P. has attacked the impugned order urging that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in giving restrictive meaning to the provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the point is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment given in the case of Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 6 SCC 477 in which it is laid down that for the purposes of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act giving or agreeing to give any property or valuable security at the marriage, before the marriage or after the marriage will be covered and Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and it takes within its sweep the giving or receiving any property or valuable security many years after the solemnization of marriage. It is submitted that the impugned order passed on the wrong and restrictive interpretation of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is unsustainable and has to be set aside. It is prayed that the application (Exh. No.108) filed by the petitioner has to be allowed and it be directed that additional charge for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 be framed.

5. Shri Bhuibhar, learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that the impugned order is proper and in consonance with the established principles of interpretation of penal Statutes which provide that the penal Statute should be interpreted directly and cannot be given wider meaning. However, the learned advocate for the respondents has not been able to counter the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioner relying on the judgment given in