Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 2487
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
JAMALUDDIN ANSARI AZAD - Petitioner
Versus
STATE & ANOTHER - Respondents
W.P.(CRL) 673 OF 2011
Decided On : 29-07-2013
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.C. Malhotra.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Agnihotri, for Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, for with SI Bal Singh, P.S. Mandawali. Mr. Himal Akhtar.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 3 and Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in providing protection to the aggrieved party and influencing the decision to quash the FIR.
Headnote:
Dowry Prohibition Act - Quashing of FIR - Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act - [3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961] - The judgment discusses the application of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the protection provided under Section 7(3) of the Act. It highlights the interpretation of the legal provisions and their influence on the court's decision to quash the FIR against the petitioner and his family members.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks to set aside an order and quash an FIR filed under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The case involves allegations of dowry demand and harassment against the petitioner's family members.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was based on allegations made by the petitioner's daughter and that the petitioner was protected under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court concluded that the impugned order and the FIR were quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the registration of the FIR under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the protection provided to the petitioner under Section 7(3) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 3 and Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the application of these provisions to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order and the FIR registered against the petitioner and his family members.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. The petitioner, vide instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is seeking direction for setting aside the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.71/2010 and for quashing the FIR No.596/2010 P.S. Mandawali, Fazalpur u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that daughter of the petitioner Noor Jahan filed a complaint of dowry demand and harassment against her husband (respondent no.2) and other in-laws with CAW Cell and on the basis of said complaint, after preliminary enquiry, FIR No.176/09 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mandawali was registered against respondent no.2 and others.
3. Daughter of the petitioner, Noor Jahan in her above referred complaint alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents and near relatives had presented huge dowry articles consisting of gold and silver ornaments of about Rs.3,50,000/- along with costly clothes and cash worth Rs.5 lakhs in two instalments i.e 2 lakhs at the time of ring ceremony and 3 lakhs at the time of marriage as demanded by her father-in-law and mother-in-law for purchasing the remaining dowry articles as per their own choice However, her husband and in-laws started passing sarcastic remarks regarding dowry as they were expecting a lot more and that they have been let down in the eyes of their relatives/friends. Besides that there were various other allegations regarding mal-nutrition and torture to her by her in-laws.
4. Respondent no.2 Mohd. Khalique, as a counter blast to the aforesaid FIR filed a petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C seeking direction for registration of FIR u/s 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner and other family members. Vide order dated 17.08.2010, the learned M.M directed registration of FIR against the petitioner and his family members as also against respondent no.2 and his family members.
5. Thereafter, respondent no.2 preferred Crl. Revision Petition and the order was modified by learned Additional Sessions Judge to the effect that the case be registered only against the petitioner and his family members u/s 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, except Noor Jahan, the bride.
6. Respondent no.2 in his petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C contended that Noor Jahan in her complaint to CAW Cell which formed basis for registration of FIR No.176/09 u/s 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. Mandawali as well as in her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C and another petition u/s 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act made categorical allegations that demand of dowry was a pre-condition to marriage by the husband and in-laws and pursuant to that, the dowry was given, which, prima facie amounts to admission of commission of an offence u/s 3 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the petitioner and his family members.
7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that registration of FIR No.596/2010 pursuant to the petition u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C moved by respondent no.2, which obviously is a counter blast to the FIR registered on the complaint of the daughter of the petitioner, is a gross abuse of process of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the objects and reasons of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 wherein it was stated that the ancient marriage rites in the Vedic period are associated with Kanyadan. It is laid down in Dharamshastara that the meritorious act of Kanyadan is not complete till the bridegroom was given a dakshina. So when a bride is given over to the bridegroom, he has to be given something in cash or kind which constitute varadakshina. Thus Kanyadan became associated with varadakshina i.e the cash or gifts in kind by the parents or guardian of the bride to the bridegroom. The varadakshina was offered out of affection and did not constitute any kind of compulsion or consideration for the marriage. Some of the articles were given out of
