Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
Kamaljeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 40527 of 2023
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Kanwal Goyal.
For the Respondents: Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Aarav Gupta.
IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act requires prior sanction from the District Magistrate, and failure to obtain it invalidates the FIR.
Headnote:
Dowry - FIR Quashing - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4, Section 8-A, Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. - The court emphasized that prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act requires prior sanction from the District Magistrate, and failure to obtain such sanction invalidates the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant registered an FIR alleging that the accused demanded Rs. 25 lacs as dowry for the marriage of his daughter, leading to the petition for quashing the FIR and subsequent report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the FIR was registered without the necessary prior sanction from the District Magistrate, constituting a legal bar to the prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Issues: Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings could be maintained without prior sanction as required under Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the term 'prosecution' includes the initiation of criminal proceedings, and without prior sanction, the FIR is invalid.
Result: The FIR and all consequential proceedings were quashed due to lack of prior sanction.
JUDGMENT :
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No. 16 dated 18.02.2023 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-2).
2. The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR are that the complainant-Surjan Singh son of Mangat Singh got registered the aforementioned FIR with the allegations that he had got fixed the marriage of his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur with accused-petitioner No. 1 Kamaljeet Singh for 07.12.2022. The accused forced him to book the California Palace at Dirba. The marriage cards had been printed and all the planning had taken place including distribution of cards. However, the accused persons got greedy and demanded Rs.25 lacs as dowry as a condition precedent for the marriage. A Panchayat was convened and respectables reached the house of the accused persons where they again reiterated their demand of dowry of Rs.25 lacs, upon which, they would perform the marriage of Kamaljeet Singh with his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur. Therefore, the accused had committed the offence in question for which they were liable to be prosecuted. A copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.
3. Based on the investigation conducted, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented and the copy of the same is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.
4. The aforementioned FIR (Annexure P-1) and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab, the prosecution itself could not be instituted against any person under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, etc. Initiation of prosecution meant that the FIR could not be registered and therefore, there was no question of consequential investigation. As there was an express bar to the very institution of proceedings, therefore, the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the final report (Annexure P-2) were liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgments in State, CBI vs. Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr. 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 947, Deepak Kumar and Anr. vs. State of Punjab and Anr. in Crl. Misc. No. 5304-M of 1988 decided on 13.01.1989, Sukhwinder Kaur vs. Harjinder Kaur in Crl. Misc. No. 8580-M of 1988 decided on 25.09.1989, Angrez Singh and Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. in Crl. Misc. No. 8021-M of 1990 decided on 12.04.1991, Nirmal Kaur vs. Balbir Singh and Ors. in CRR No. 272 of 1991 decided on 08.12.1991, Komal Jain vs. Amit Jain and Ors. in CRR-3000 of 2010 decided on 04.08.2011 and State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No. 2 has not disputed the legal position as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to the reply dated 30.01.2024 contends that as the offence was established from the allegations levelled in the FIR, the present petition was liable to be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Before proceeding further, it would relevant to examine the provisions of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab and the same is reproduced herein below:
“8-A. Institution of proceedings - No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of such officer as the State Government may by special or general order appoint in this behalf.”
10. In State, CBI vs. Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr 2007 (2) Crimes 91, one of the questions which had arisen was as to wh
