U. S. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) BY moving this application under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. the applicants have prayed for quashing the criminal complaint and its entire proceeding in case No. 286 of 1996 under Sec. 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. Dowry Prohibition Officer, Agra v. Yogesh Chhibar and others pending before A. C. J. M. II, Agra as well as the summoning order dated 4-2-1994.

( 2 ) IT appears that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Kanchan Chhibar moved an application before District prohibition officer/dowry prohibition officer, Agra alleging that she was married three years ago with Yogesh Chhibar applicant No. 1. Her husband opposite party No. 1, father-in-law opposite party No. 2, mother-in-law opposite party No. 3 and sisters-in-law opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 started demanding dowry and therefore action be taken against them. The Dowry Prohibition Officer made enquiry and ultimately filed a complaint against the applicants before A. C. J. M. Ist Agra. On receipt of the above complaint the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 26-3-1994 registered a case and summoned the accused persons (applicants) fixing 7-5-1993 for appearance. The applicants preferred revision before Sessions Judge, Agra against the above summoning order. The Criminal revision No. 263 of 1993 was decided by IInd Additional Sessions Judge,agra, vide his order dated 10-1-1994. He allowed the revision, set aside the order of A. C. J. M. and remanded back the case to the Trial Court for passing fresh order for summoning the accused after applying his mind. Thereafter, vide order dated 4-2-1994 the A. C. J. M. again summoned the applicants under Sec. 4/6 Dowry Prohibition Act. The above summoning order as well as proceeding arising out of it have been sought to be quashed.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. None appeared from the side of opposite party no. 2 despite of sufficient personal service on her.

( 4 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that cognizance was taken by the Magistrate and the applicants were summoned on complaint filed by Dowry Prohibition Officer, but he had no right to file complaint and therefore the summoning of applicants was wrong. He also placed reliance on the provisions of Sec. 7 Dowry Prohibition Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as under :-"cognizance of offences.- (1) Notwith- standing anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, - (A) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first Class shall try any offence under this Act. (B) no Court shall take congnizance of an offence under this Act except upon- (I) its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or (II) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organisation. (C) it shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act on any person convicted of any offence under this Act. EXPLANATION- For the purposes of this sub-section, "recognized welfare institution of organisation" means a social welfare institution or organisation recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government. (2) Nothing in chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on the complaint filed by Dowry Prohibition Officer. Sec. 7 (1) (b) of Dowry Prohibition Act bars taking cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document