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

2007 Supreme(Del) 386

High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
NEERA SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) - Respondents
CRL. M. C. 7262 Of 2006
Decided On : 02/23/2007

Advocates Appeared:
L.B.RAI, RICHA KAPOOR, Sukriti Bhardwaj, V.K.SINGH, VIKAS ARORA

Specific allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry are essential to establish the offense under Section 498a.

Headnote:

Dowry - Criminal Law - AIR 1996 (Supreme court) 67, Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 3, Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of List of presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged taunting for insufficient dowry but failed to prove subsequent demand or harassment. The husband resided separately, and there were no specific allegations against the accused persons. The complainant married into the family despite knowing about dowry demands.

Finding of the Court:

The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, as there were no specific allegations of cruelty against the accused persons.

Issues: Allegations of taunting for insufficient dowry and vague allegations against family members.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between taunting for insufficient dowry and demand of dowry, and the need for specific allegations of cruelty to constitute the offense under Section 498a.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.


SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) of the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:

"perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and consequent harassment for not meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her husband and in laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996 (Supreme court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of Section 498a, sufficient to constitute the offence i. e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of of dowry. There is not a single allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant was ever harassed with respect to further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie case under Section 498a is not made out against accused Bishan Pal, Santosh devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh. "

( 2 ) AGAINST this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material observed as under:

"in the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely, bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. The Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract Section 498a. There are not specific allegations with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. "

( 3 ) A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i. e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father "you have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow". Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and w






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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top