( 1 ) THIS petition has been brought under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking the quashment of the complaint dated 12/7/1984 pending in the Court of Shri Z. S. Solanki, Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

( 2 ). Gursharan Kaur, respondent had filed a complaint dated 7/7/1984 against the petitioner Gursharan Singh and also against Harbans Singh and his wife Darshan Kaur with the allegations that complainant was married to Gursharan Singh on 7/7/1981 and that all the accused at the time of the settlement of the marriage through one Ajit Singh, retired Sub Inspector of Delhi Police had demanded dowry articles namely T. V. Fridge, Scooter or Rs. 20,000. 00 and 21 sarees/suits for the girl and two suits for the husband, one suit for father-in-law, two suits for mother-in-law, 51 utensils, table fan and number of other articles which are generally given in dowry. It is pleaded that complainant s father had expressed his inability to give TV, Fridge and Scooter or Rs. 20,000. 00 but had agreed to give remaining articles of dowry as consideration for marriage. It was pleaded that the parents of the complainant gave various articles of dowry as consideration of marriage but after three-four months of the marriage, the accused started harassing the complainant for not bringing the sufficient dowry and required her to put pressure on her parents to give remaining articles of, dowry. It is pleaded that under pressure of the accused, complainant managed to get Rs. 1,000. 00 in cash on two occasions from her parents and given the same to her husband. It was then mentioned that a daughter was born out of this wedlock on 28/6/1982 but it is the complainant s parents who bore all the expenses of delivery and complainant was beaten, insulted and abused and turned out of the house in her three clothes on 2/7/1983 It was further mentioned that on pursuation of Gursharan Single she again came back and Jived wish the husband but harassment continued at the bands ofer husband and on 17/7/1983 she made a report io the police for getting her dowry articles returned from the accused and with the interference of some panchayat people, some of the articles of dowry were returned. She pleaded that rest of the dowry articles as shown in Mark x in Annexure a filed alongwith the complaint had not been returned and thus the accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 6 of the Act.

( 3 ). The accused have been summoned to face trial under said Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

( 4 ). The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the complaint filed in the case was barred by time and thus the whole of the proceedings pending before the Magistrate on the basis of that complaint should be quashed.

( 5 ). The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that the offence under Section 6 of the Act is a continuing offence and thus the period of limitation prescribed in Section 7 (b) is not applicable to such an offence and therefore the complaint is not barred by limitation and in the alternative he has argued that from the facts disclosed in thecomplaint and the evidence led before summoning of the accused clearly make out a case that accused have at least committed the offence punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code and the accused could be tried for the said offence.

( 6 ). So, the first question to be decided in the present case is whether the complaint made for trial of the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is barred or not. Section 6 (1) reads as follows :

6. (1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman : (a) if the dowry was received before marriage within one year after the date of marriage ; or (b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage ; within one year after t