JUDGMENT :

1. On account of prevailing Covid-19 Pandemic, the case was heard through video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-respondent and perused the record.

3. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to quash the impugned charge sheet no. 27 of 2017 dated 25.03.2017 as well as the summoning order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 14, Pratapgarh in Case No. 160 of 2017.

4. The charge sheet as well as summoning order have been challenged mainly on the ground that learned Court below failed to apply its legal mind on the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer as the same was not sufficient for taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners. According to Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), taking or giving of dowry both are punishable offences, then under what circumstances the Investigating Officer did not register a case against the complainant, who alleged that he gave dowry in the form of "Cash" to the petitioners.

5. In this matter, the first information report was lodged by the complainant-opposite party no. 2-Krishna Prasad Mishra against the petitioners alleging that marriage of the complainant's daughter was settled to be solemnized with Vipin Chandra Tiwari (petitioner no. 3). Thereafter, the petitioners started demanding dowry in different forms for different reasons and kept pending solemnization of marriage. After repeated requests the date of marriage was fixed and the necessary arrangements as booking of Marriage Hall, arrangements of catering etc. were made. Thereafter on 16.06.2016, Vipin Chandra Tiwari (petitioner no. 3) and his father (petitioner no. 1) went to complainant's house and demanded additional dowry and threatened that if the money is not given, they will not marry the daughter of the complainant. Facing such difficult situation, the complainant gave additional three lacs rupees to Vipin Chandra Tiwari (petitioner no. 3) but they again started demanding more. The complainant was unable to pay more and he realized that the petitioners have taken the money on the pretext of marriage and they did not want to marry his daughter.

6. Upon a complaint so moved by the complainant, an F.I.R. was registered, investigation made and Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet before the Court concerned. The Court finding sufficient ground took cognizance against the petitioners. Being aggrieved with the order of taking cognizance and summoning the petitioners, this petition has been filed before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued mainly on two counts. Firstly, according to Section 3 of the Act, the giving of dowry is also a punishable offence, then why a case was not registered against the complainant. Secondly, the marriage was not solemnized so the offence could not be said to have been committed.

8. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the above submissions has submitted that the Dowry Prohibition Act is a legislation to protect the women and their family from the menace of demand of dowry, therefore to punish the complainant will cause injustice to the complainant and will be against the intention of legislature. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that under the definition of dowry, any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given before or after marriage comes under the definition of dowry. He further submitted that in the first information report cognizable offence was disclosed and after investigation, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the petitioners. Thereafter, learned Court below after applying its legal mind took cognizance of the offence and passed the summoning order, which is perfectly legal, hence, this petition lacks any merit.

9. Considered the rival submissions and peruse