Prima facie violation of the Dowry Prohibition Act justified not quashing the FIR.

Vivek Agarwal, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR and all consequential proceedings which were registered at Crime No.222/2014 dated 07.06.2013 at Police Station-Kailaras, District-Morena, for offence punishable under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his marriage was fixed with daughter of respondent No.2-Laxman Singh Kushwah, namely Geeta Kushwah on 06.06.2014, but that ceremony was to be cancelled on account of the fact that one of the eyes of prospective bride-Geeta, was defective and when he discovered this fact, he refused to proceed with the marriage ceremony with Geeta.

3. On the other hand, complaint was lodged alleging that marriage was cancelled for demand of dowry of Rs. 30,00,000/-, which since the complainant-Laxman Singh Kushwah was unable to fulfil, therefore, petitioner had broken the relationship and had gone back from the proposed marriage.

4. It is petitioner’s contention that prior to registration of FIR, on 17.05.2014, he had moved an application before Police Station-Gole Ka Mandir, District-Gwalior, against the complainant family alleging that some important facts have been concealed that one of the eyes of Geeta is artificial and therefore, he had refused to marry her and it was also mentioned that such information was received after performance of the Ring Ceremony. Based on such statements and also submitting that since the applicant was a student of Ph.D. from agriculture university, Gwalior and he was not willing to perform marriage with a girl having one artificial eye, therefore, there is no illegality in rescinding the marriage after Ring Ceremony and therefore, no case under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is made-out.

5. It is further submitted that since Geeta has already performed marriage with one-Jitendra, therefore, no useful purpose is going to be achieved by pursuing the present FIR.

6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides for penalty for giving or taking dowry and Section 4 for demanding dowry. It is submitted that the petitioner was already knowing the health condition of Geeta and he had given consent to such proposal and had agreed for Ring Ceremony after knowing all the facts, but in fact for the demand of dowry, he had refused to perform the marriage and therefore, ingredients of Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, are fulfilled and thus, demand of dowry before marriage being an offence, therefore quashing of FIR is not permissible and is against the ratio of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar v. State of Maharashtra as reported in (2001) Cr.L.J. 2792 (SC).

7. The fact of the matter is that prima-facie the allegations made in the complaint are to be seen for the purpose of taking cognizance and therefore, there does not appear to be any justification for quashing of the FIR inasmuch as merely Geeta performing marriage somewhere else is not a sufficient reason to absolve the petitioner from charges of demand of dowry which is a serious social evil prevailing in the society and which constitutes an offence under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

8. In view of such provisions of law and the act of the petitioner prima-facie showing violation of the Act of 1961, this Court is not inclined to exercise it’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings. Thus, the petition fails and is dismissed.