Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. P. Singh, J.
RAJEEV - Appellant
Versus
RAM KISHAN JAISWAL - Respondents
Criminal Revision 86 Of 1991
Decided On : 11/09/1992
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT - SECTION 6 - DEFINITION OF DOWRY - TRANSFER OF DOWRY - OFFENCE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE - PROCEDURE - REVISION - JURISDICTION - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - WITHDRAWAL - EFFECT - CIVIL REMEDY - AVAILABILITY - CRIMINAL PROSECUTION - RIGHT TO FILE SUIT FOR RETURN OF ARTICLES - NO BAR.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Ram Kishan Jaiswal, alleged that his daughter, Seema, was harassed and tortured for insufficient dowry by her in-laws, the applicants. He filed a complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Sections 406 and 120-B/34 IPC, and in the alternative under Section 406, 498-A, 302 IPC, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The applicants challenged the summoning order, arguing that no offence under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made out, that the subject matter of the complaint was already under investigation in another case, and that the complainant had already moved an application before the SDM, PS Lahori Gate, Delhi under Section 156(3) CrPC for the same relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the articles mentioned in the complaint were given in connection with the marriage of Seema with Rajeev Jaiswal and were therefore covered by the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It further held that the investigation in the other case did not deal with the subject matter of the present complaint and that the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant in the Delhi court as withdrawn before cognizance was taken did not bar the present complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the articles mentioned in the complaint were covered by the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act? 2. Whether the investigation in the other case barred the present complaint? 3. Whether the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant in the Delhi court as withdrawn before cognizance was taken barred the present complaint?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act does not require that the property or valuable security be given in consideration for the marriage. Any property or valuable security given by the parents of the girl to the bridegroom or his family members at or before or every time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties is covered by the term dowry. 2. The court held that the investigation in the other case did not deal with the subject matter of the present complaint and therefore did not bar the present complaint. 3. The court held that the dismissal of the complaint filed by the complainant in the Delhi court as withdrawn before cognizance was taken did not bar the present complaint, as no statement under Section 200 CrPC and 202 CrPC had been recorded by the magistrate in support of the assertions made in the complaint.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision application, holding that the summoning order was valid and that the trial court had jurisdiction to proceed with the case.
( 1 ) THE facts leading to this application for revision may briefly be stated as follows : Ram Kishan jaiswal, opposite party No. 1, is resident of Chanakyapuri, Meerut Cantt. Ram Kishan Jaiswals daughter, Kumari Seema, (aged about 19 yearn) was engaged to applicant No. 1, Rajeev Jaiswal, on 20-11-89 through a common relative Pradeep. A sum of rupees 12 thousand was spent in the engagement ceremony. The Sagai ceremony was performed on 24-11-1989 and a sum of rupees 1 lakh 50 thousand was spent on that occasion. Prior to the Sagai ceremony it was agreed between Ram Kishan Jaiswal and Mool Chand Jaiswal (father of Rajeev Jaiswal) that a sum of rupees 1 lakh would be paid by Ram Kishan Jaiswal for the purchase of Maruti Van. This sum of rupees 1 lakh was in fact paid by Ram Kishan Jaiswal, the Maruti Van was purchased and was shown at the Sagai ceremony.
( 2 ) THE marriage of Seema and Rajeev was performed on 30-11-1989. Ever since the marriage, the in-laws of Seema started harassing her for the insufficiency of dowry. On 14-4-1990 Mool chand Jaiswal demanded a sum of rupees 2 lakhs from Ram Kishan Jaiswal. Ram Kishan jaiswal requested that he would try to arrange for the money. On 15-4-1990, Rajeev, Seema and sanjeev came to Meerut and the two brothers i. e. Rajeev and Sanjeev gave out that they would leave Seema unless the sum of rupees 2 lakhs was paid. On 8-5-1990 Seema rang from Delhi and informed her father that she was being maltreated for not bringing the full amount of rupees 2 lakhs as only a sum of rupees 50 thousand and was paid to Rajeev and Sanjeev on 5-5-1990. On 13-S-1990 Seema again rang and informed that her in-laws wanted rupees 1 lakh 50 thousand on that very day.
( 3 ) AT about 9 P M. on the same day Ram Kishan Jaiswal received a phone from Pradeep intimating that Seema wan in a precarious condition and he was to reach Delhi. Ram Kishan jaiswal alongwith his wife, Krishna Devi, immediately left for Delhi and on reaching Fatehpuri they found that Seema was lying dead in the house of her father-in-law. The case of the applicants-revisionists is that Seema died on 13-5-90 as a result of asphyxia caused by hanging at the residence of the husband at Lahori Gate, Delhi. The police, accompanied by the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotwali. Delhi, came there and the inquest proceedings were conducted by the S. D. M. in the presence of the parents of the deceased. At that time both the parents of the deceased-Seema told the S. D. M. that the deceased had committed suicide and they had no grievance whatsoever, against any of the revisionists and that no demand of dowry was ever made by Seemas in-laws. Certain articles of Seema were taken in custody by the police. After the post-mortem examination of the dead body, the same was handed over to the applicants and the cremation was done in the presence of the parents and other relatives of the deceased.
( 4 ) ON 29-5-1990 the parents of the deceased entered into an agreement with Mool Chand Jaiswal and other that no proceedings of civil criminal nature would be initiated against the applicants. The agreement was reduced in writing and was signed by the notery.
( 5 ) ON 15-6-1990 Ram Kishan Jaiswal gave an application to the Women Cell, Delhi in which allegations were made to the effect that his daughter was harassed and tortured and the dowry was demanded by the applicants. On the basis of this application a case under Sections 498-A, 304-B/34 I. P. C. was registered at Crime No. 189 of 1980 in Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi. Apprehending their arrest, the applicants got anticipatory bails from the Delhi High Court. A report was also called by the High Court from the Delhi Police regarding the manner and circumstance in which Seema had died and also regarding the settlement which was arrived at between the parties.
( 6 ) ON 21-8-1990 Ram Kishan Jaiswal gave an application in the Court of Sri J. P. S. Malik, metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi praying for the re
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
