SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Cal) 300

High Court Of Calcutta
S. P. RAJKHOWA
SANKAR PROSAD SHAW - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION 345  Of  1985
Decided On : 07/27/1990

Advocates Appeared:
DEBASIS ROY, M.P.Mukherji, MANJULADHAR CHAUDHARY, MOSTAFIZUR RAHAMAN CHAUDHARY

Demand for dowry after the marriage does not constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Headnote:

DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 2 - DEFINITION OF DOWRY - DEMAND FOR DOWRY AFTER MARRIAGE - NOT AN OFFENCE UNDER THE ACT - SECTION 498A OF THE PENAL CODE - CRUELTY - HARASSMENT FOR UNLAWFUL DEMAND - RELEVANT.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of demanding dowry from the complainant's sister after the marriage. The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, read with Section 120B of the Penal Code. The petitioners challenged the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the demand for dowry after the marriage did not constitute an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court observed that the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Act required that the property or valuable security be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. In this case, the complainant had not alleged that any property or valuable security was given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage.

Issues: Whether the demand for dowry after the marriage constituted an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and held that the definition of dowry required that the property or valuable security be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. The court also referred to Section 498A of the Penal Code, which deals with cruelty against women, and observed that the alleged offence in this case may attract the penal provisions of that section.

Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition, quashed the impugned proceeding, and made the rule absolute.

S. P. RAJKHOWA, J.


( 1 ) IN this Criminal Revision, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the proceeding in Case No. C. 1249 of 1 984u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 read with S. 120b of the Penal Code pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta.

( 2 ) THE facts of the proceeding in brief are as follows : - Smt. Usha Shaw, sister of the complainant Bhagwat Prosad Gupta (O. P. No. 2) was given in marriage to Shankar Prosad Shaw alias Gupta (accused-petitioner No. 1) according to the Hindu rites and rituals on 14-5-81 at Calcutta. After the marriage Usha Shaw was brought to the matrimonial house of Shankar Prosad and both them spent their conjugal life happily for about a month but that happiness was short-lived. The husband along with his father Parameswar Prosad Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 2), his brother Anil Kumar Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 3) and his sister Smt. Asha Shaw (accused-petitioner No. 4) began to make illegal demands to Usha Shaw to bring costly electronic appliances such as T. V. Set, Refrigerator, Gas Connection and cash of Rs. 50,000/- and also 15 tolas of gold from her parents. Otherwise they would not allow Usha Shaw to retain her marital status in their house. On failing to get the aforesaid articles the opposite parties jointly and severally started torturing Usha Shaw Ultimately, on 14-4-82 the members of the opposite parties took Usha Shaw to the house of the complainant and left her there saying that they would not allow her to come husband's house unless their demands were met. Under the circumstances, the complainant filed a complaint case against the opposite parties earlier u/s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. after obtaining the sanction from the Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of West Bengal. But the case was compromised on 17-2-83 and the opposite parties had forgone their illegal demands and took back Usha Shaw to her husband's house. Having compromised the case and thus releasing themselves from the legal consequences of their illegal demands, the opposite parties renewed their old demands and began to torture Usha Shaw and heap indignities upon her. So the complainant again obtained required sanction for prosecution of the opposite parties from the Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of West Bengal and launched criminal prosecution u/ S. 4 of the said Act read with S. 120 B of the Penal Code.

( 3 ) CONGNIZANCE being taken of an offence u/s. 4 of the said Act, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta directed to issue summons upon all the accused petitioners vice his order dt. 27-4-84. It is against this order that the petitioners have come up before this Court in this revision with a prayer to quash the proceeding pending before the learned Magistrate.

( 4 ) SRI Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case as made out by the opposite parties before the trial Court does not attract the penalty contemplated u/s. 4 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to the definition of dowry as given in S. 2 of the Act which runs as follows : -"in this Act, "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to the marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies".

( 5 ) SO, as per the definition, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either party to the marriage or to any other person, at


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top