Back
2024 Supreme(All) 2319
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.
Ankit Singh And 3 Others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.10631 of 2024
Decided on : 23-05-2024
For the Appellant : D.K.Ojha, Vikas Kumar Ojha
For the Respondent: G.A.
The court emphasized the mandatory compliance with the Dowry Prohibition Act and its rules, particularly regarding the submission of dowry lists and the role of Dowry Prohibition Officers in investigations.
Headnote:(A) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4, 6, and 8B - Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 - Rules 5(5) A, 6(1), 6(4), 7, 8, and 10 - The court addressed the non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding the submission of dowry lists and the role of Dowry Prohibition Officers in investigating dowry-related offences. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to the rules to prevent misuse and ensure justice in dowry cases. (Paras 3, 6, 11, 20, 32)
(B) Compliance and Enforcement - The court highlighted the necessity for the State Government to ensure that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Rules are implemented effectively, including the investigation of dowry allegations and the prosecution of offenders. (Paras 6, 18, 32)
Facts of the case:
The court noted a significant number of dowry-related cases lacking proper investigation into the mandatory submission of dowry lists as per the Rules of 1999 and 1985, leading to potential misuse of the law.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the State Government to explain the lack of compliance with the Dowry Prohibition Act and to take necessary steps to enforce the provisions effectively.
Issues: The main issues included the failure to maintain dowry lists, the role of Dowry Prohibition Officers, and the need for proper investigation into dowry allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Dowry Prohibition Officers must be actively involved in the investigation of dowry cases, and the failure to comply with the rules undermines the objectives of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Result: The court stayed further proceedings in the pending case against the applicants until compliance is ensured.
JUDGMENT :
Vikram D. Chauhan, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. In pursuance to order dated 8.5.2024, Director, Woman Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow has filed an affidavit annexing the Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999.
3. The Uttar Pradesh Dowry Prohibition Rules, 1999 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1999”) are framed by State in exercise of power under Section 10 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The above-mentioned affidavit discloses that District Probation Officer has been nominated as District Dowry Prohibition Officer. As per Section 8B of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the powers and functions of Dowry Prohibition Officer are as under :
a) to see that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are complied with.
b) to prevent, as far as possible, the taking or abetting the taking of, or the demanding of, dowry.
c) to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act; and
d) to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government, or as may be specified in the rules made under this Act.
4. According to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999, parties to any marriage or any of the parents or either of them shall furnish to concerned Dowry Prohibition Officer within one month from the date of marriage a copy of the list of presents prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (maintenance of lists of presents to the Bride and Bride Groom) Rules, 1985 (For brevity hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1985”). Rule 10 of the Rules of 1985 is quoted hereinbelow :-
“10. Submission of a list of presents by parties to the marriage.-
The parties to any marriage or any of the parents or either of them shall furnish to the concerned Dowry Prohibition Officer within one month from the date of marriage, a copy of the list of presents prepared in accordance with the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.”
5. A perusal of Rule 6(8) of the Rules of 1999 would show that one of the functions of Dowry Prohibition Officer is to keep in his custody the list of all presents submitted to the parties to any marriage under Rule 10 and to make entries relating thereto into a register to be maintained for the purpose. He is also responsible for strict compliance of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition (maintenance of lists of presents to the Bride and Bride Groom) Rules, 1985. The provision of Rule 6 (8) of Rules of 1999 is quoted hereinbelow :-
“6 (8). He shall keep in his custody the lists of all presents submitted to the parties to any marriage under Rule 10 of these rules and make entires relating therto into a register to be maintained for the purpose. He shall also examine these lists and ensure the strict compliance of the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.”
6. A number of cases arising out of Dowry Prohibition Act are coming before this Court, in none of these cases, the list required to be maintained as per Rules of 1985 is being shown. In the investigation also the aspect with regard to submission of list as per Rule 10 of Rules of 1999 is not being investigated. The submission of list as per Rules of 1985 is mandatory under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999. Such list is required to be submitted before Dowry Prohibition Officer. The investigating officers are not examining this aspect of matter when first information report is lodged under Dowry Prohibition Act. The State government is required to explain as to why list as required by Rules of 1985 as well as by Rules of 1999 are not being maintained by Dowry Prohibition Officer. The State government is also required to explain as to why the citizens are not being encouraged for submission of list under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1999. If the aforesaid list is maintained then it would assist the investigating officer a
