Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2554
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Shivendra Raizada & Others - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Another - Opposite Parties
Application u/s 482 No. 1046 of 2005
Decided On : 06-12-2018
For the Applicant : Amit Kumar Srivastava.
The complaint lacked specific allegations and the demand for money did not constitute dowry as defined by the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court also considered the joint petition for divorce and the accident suffered by one of the applicants.
Headnote:
DOWRY - Criminal Proceedings - Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act - 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed alleging harassment and demand of dowry against the applicants. The applicants contended that the complaint was frivolous and without merit, and that there were no specific allegations against them. They also cited a joint petition for divorce and an accident suffered by one of the applicants as further grounds for dismissal of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations against the applicants and that the demand for money did not constitute dowry as defined by the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court also considered the joint petition for divorce and the accident suffered by one of the applicants.
Issues: Frivolous complaint, lack of specific allegations, definition of dowry, joint petition for divorce, accident suffered by applicant
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of dowry as per the Dowry Prohibition Act and considered the lack of specific allegations against the applicants. The court also took into account the joint petition for divorce and the accident suffered by one of the applicants.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicants.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. Present application under section 482 has been filed to quash the proceeding of Case No.3606/9 of 2004 (Rajeshwari Saxena vs. Shivendra Raizada and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moradabad.
3. As per office report dated 27.4.2005, notice to opposite party No. 2 has been returned back after service.
4. Since matter is pertaining to the year 2005, therefore, Court is proceeded to decide the case on merits.
5. Brief facts of the case are that a complaint dated 15.04.2004 has been filed before CJM, Moradabad under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Which was registered as Case No. 3606/9 of 2004. It is alleged in the complaint that marriage of applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 was solemnised as per hindu rights and rituals in the month of January, 1999 and dowry was given to applicants and applicants were not pleased with dowry and further demanded Rs. 80,000/- of dowry which was refused by the opposite party. After refusal, applicants have harassed opposite party No. 2-wife and thrown her out from their house. Statement of opposite party No. 2 has been recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statement of PW-1 and PW-2 has also been recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order date 20.05.2004 has summoned the applicants under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in fact it is absolutely frivolous complaint and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also passed the summoning order without application of mind. No dowry was given by the father of the opposite party No. 2 in the marriage and marriage was solemnised in a very simple manner. In fact, opposite party No. 2 had always put pressure upon her husband-applicant No. 1 to live separately from the family of applicants, but when applicant No. 1 refused to live separately, she became annoyed and left her matrimonial house in August, 2000 and since then she is living with her parents at Moradabad. He further submitted that after every efforts for reconciliation, when nothing positive has happened, applicant No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 had moved joint petition for divorce under Section 13(b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before Judge, Family Court, Moradabad which was registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No. 579 of 2002 dated 13.12.2002. It is also submitted that applicant No. 1 has given Stri Dhan and other goods which was claimed by opposite party No. 2. It is next submitted that ultimately the divorce petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 21.2.2004 due to absence of both the parties for which applicant No. 1 has moved restoration application before Judge, Family Court, Moradabad and the same is still pending.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that unfortunately applicant No. 1 had met with an accident on 21.04.2014 and his both legs got amputed. It is also submitted that on merits, the complaint has no substance for the reason that in the first paragraph of complaint dated 15.04.2004, it has been stated Rs. 80,000/-was demanded by the applicants for repairing of clinic. He has contended that if any amount is demanded for certain purpose, it does not come within the purview of dowry in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb vs. State of Maharashtra 2007 (57) ACC 544 decided on 05.01.2007 and another judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (A-I) Vs. State of A.P. 2013 (2) JIC 377 (SC) decided on 13.03.2013.
8. It is further submitted that complaint was filed against all the family members along with applicant No. 1-husband without any specific allegation upon either of
