Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
B.P. Singh, J.
Rajeev & Ors. - Petitioners
versus
Ram Kishan Jaiswal & Anr. - Opp. Parties
Cri. Revision No. 86 of 1991
Decided on 9.11.1992
Held, this definition of dowry nowhere contemplates that the property or valuable security must be given in consideration for the marriage before it can attract the definition of dowry. The law, as it Stands today, simply provides that any property given by the parents of the girl to the bridegroom from his family members at or before every time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties shall be covered by the term dowry as given in the Dowry Prohibition Act. (para 15)
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961- Section 6 - Petitioners summoned by Court of Magistrate at Meerut in a complaint - A case had already been registered with police in Delhi regarding same incident but the subject matter of investigation of that case was the death of bride Question of return of the articles or of offence under Dowry Prohibition Act not involved with case registered in Delhi - Case registered in Delhi cannot affect the complaint in Meerut. (Para 16)
(iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Section 6 Summoning order against accused/petitioner in a complaint filed in Meerut Court - Earlier a complaint u/s 406 & 120B r/w 34, I.P.C. & of u/s 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act was filed before Magistrate in Delhi but if was withdrawn before the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences mentioned in complaint - Proceedings of that complaint is no bar to the complaint lodged in Meerut. (para 17)
Result: Revision dismissed.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Singh, J. - The facts leading to this application for revision may briefly be stated as follows:
Ram Kishan Jaiswal, opposite party No. 1, is resident or Meerut Cantt. Ram Kishan Jaiswal’s daughter, Kumari Seema (aged about, 19 years) was engaged to applicant No. 1, Rajeev Jaiswal on 20.11.1989 through a common relative Pradeep. A sum of rupees 12 thousand as spent in the engagement ceremony.
The sagai ceremony was performed on 24.11.1989 and a sum of rupees 1 lakh 50 thousand was spent on that occasion. Prior to the Sagai ceremony it was agreed between Ram Kishan Jaiswal and Mool Chand Jaiswal (father of Rajeev Jaiswal) that a sum of rupees l lakh would be paid by Ram Kishan Jaiswal for the purchase of Maruti Van. This sum of rupees l lakh was in fact paid by Ram Kishan Jaiswal, the Maruti Van was purchased and was shown at the Sagai ceremony.
The marriage of Seema and Rajeev was performed on 30.11.1989. Ever since the marriage, the in-laws of Seema started harassing her for the insufficiency of dowry. On 14.4.1990 Mool Chand Jaiswal demanded a sum of rupees 2 lakhs from Ram Kishan Jaiswal. Ram Kishan Jaiswal requested that he would try to arrange for the money. On 15.4.1990, Rajeev, Seema and Sanjeev came to Meerut and the two brothers i.e. Rajeev and Sanjeev gave out that they would leave Seema unless the sum of rupees 2 lakhs was paid. On 8.5.1990 Seema rang from Delhi and informed her father that she was being maltreated for not bringing the full amount of rupees 2 lakhs as only a sum of rupees 50 thousand was paid to Rajeev and Sanjeev on 5.5.1990. On 13.5.1990 Seema again rang and informed that her in-laws wanted rupees 1 lakh 50 thousand on that very, day.
2. At about 9 p.m. on the same day Ram Kishan Jaiswal received a phone from Pradeep intimating that Seema was in a precarious condition and he was to reach Delhi. Ram Kishan Jaiswal alongwith his wife, Krishna Devi, immediately left for Delhi and on reaching Fatehpuri they found that Seema was lying dead in the house of her father-in-law. The case of the applicants revisionists is that Seema died on 13.5.1990 as a result of asphyxia caused by hanging at the residence of her husband in Lahori Gate, Delhi. The police, accompanied by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali, Delhi, came there and the inquest proceedings were conducted by the S.D.M. in the presence of the parents of the deceased. At that time both the parents of the deceased-Seema told the S.D.M. that the deceased had committed suicide and they had no grievance whatsoever, against any of the revisionist and that no demand of dowry was ever made by Seema's in-laws.
3. Certain articles of Seema were taken in custody by the police. After the post mortem examination of the dead body, the same was handed over to the applicants and the cremation was done in the presence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased.
4. On 29.5.1990, the parents of the deceased enter into an agreement with Mool Chand Jaiswal and others that no proceedings of civil or criminal nature would be initiated against the applicants. The agreement was reduced in writing and was signed by the notery.
5. On 15.6.1990 Ram Kishan Jaiswal gave an application to the Women Cell, Delhi in which allegations were made to the effect that his daughter was harassed and tortured and the dowry was demanded by the applicants. On the basis of this application a case under sections 498-A, 3/B 134 I.P.C. was registered at Crime No. 189 of 1990 in police station Lahori Gate, Delhi. Apprehending their arrest, the applicants got anticipatory bails from the Delhi High Court. A report was also called by the High Court from the Delhi police regarding the manner and circumstance in which Seema had died and also regarding the settlement which was arrived at between the parties.
6. On 21.8.1990 Ram Kishan Jaiswal gave an application in the court of Sri J.P.S. Malik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi praying for the return of the articles which were
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
