HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
I.M.Quddusi
RAJESH SAXENA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 09 October 1998
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4662 of 1989
DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 4 - DEMAND OF DOWRY BEFORE MARRIAGE - NOT PUNISHABLE - DOWRY DEFINED - SECTION 2 - VALUABLE SECURITY DEFINED - SECTION 30 IPC - OFFENCE CONSTITUTED ONLY WHEN DOWRY DEMANDED - SECTION 4 - DOWRY NOT DEMANDED - NO OFFENCE MADE OUT.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the accused persons, including the applicants, for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that the applicants demanded money to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant when he showed his incapability to pay such a huge amount. On this, the ceremonies were not performed due to non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the demand of dowry before performing marriage is not punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court observed that the definition of dowry in Section 2 of the Act requires that the property or valuable security be given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. In the instant case, no property or valuable security was ever given or agreed to be given by either party and admittedly no performance of marriage has ever been done. Hence, it cannot be said that by demanding some money, property or valuable security will come within the meaning of dowry as defined in Section 2 and thus any dowry if demanded will not constitute an offence under Section 4.
Issues: Whether demand of dowry before performing marriage is punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of dowry in Section 2 of the Act requires that the property or valuable security be given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. In the instant case, no property or valuable security was ever given or agreed to be given by either party and admittedly no performance of marriage has ever been done. Hence, it cannot be said that by demanding some money, property or valuable security will come within the meaning of dowry as defined in Section 2 and thus any dowry if demanded will not constitute an offence under Section 4.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and quashed the order dated 23-2-1989 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah in complaint case No. 2994 of 1988 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act Prem Babu Saxena v. Sri Rajesh Saxena and others, as well as the complaint.
In this case the matter for consideration is whether under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 demand of dowry before performing marriage is punishable under the Act or not.
2. In this case a complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah for the prosecution of the accused persons, including the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter described as the "act"), which was registered as complaint case No. 2994 of 1988 according to which the applicants along with their other relatives visited Etah on 28-12-1998 and saw the daughter of respondent No. 2 at his residence. They approved her for marriage and according to their scheduled programme to perform the ceremonies of God Bharai
and Teeka. They reached at Allahabad on 31-12-1987 and demanded money to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- when the respondent No. 2 showed his incapability to pay such a huge amount. On this the ceremonies were not performed due to non-fulfilment of the demand for dowry. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC sum moned the applicants only but refused to summon the other persons.
3. From the perusal of the allegations made in the complaint as well as the statements given by the witnesses it ap pears that it is an admitted case of the complainant that no settlement was ar rived at for giving the amount demanded and hence the settled ceremonies of the marriage were not performed. In view of the above facts we have to consider first the definition of the dowry as given in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which reads as under :
"2. dowry in this Act means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a mar riage or by any other person, to cither party to the marriage or to any other person;
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or Mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Per sonal Law (Shariat) applies. "
From the perusal of the above definition of dowry, the following conditions are liable to be fulfilled viz. the property or valuable security given or agreed to be given by or on behalf of one party to other party to the marriage and the valuable security given or agreed to be given at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the par ties. The definition of the valuable secu rity has been given in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code, which is reproduced as below:
"valuable security".-The words valuable security" denote a document which is, or pur ports to be a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any per son acknowledges that he lies under legal li ability, or has not a certain legal right. "
Thus, if a property or vlauablc secu rity has been given in connection with the marriage at or before or any time after the marriage comes within the definition of dowry inasmuch as the property or valu able security agreed to be given at or be fore or any time after the marriage in con nection with marriage also comes within the definition of dowry. Section 4 of the Act provides that if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with impris onment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. In the instant matter it is the admitted case of the com plainant that neither the property or valu able security was given nor the same was agreed to be given. Hence the sum de manded will not come within the meaning of the definition dowry unless
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.