The limitation period for taking cognizance under the Dowry Prohibition Act is not restricted, and the trial court must consider the timing and grounds for discharge as it examines prima facie evidence.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 18-12-2025

Mr. Pratik Kr. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashutosh Tripathi, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, and Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3, learned APP for the State, have been heard at length.

2. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) (now section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘ BNSS ’)) for quashing the order dated 11.05.2016 passed by the court of the SDJM, Sasaram, in Complaint Case No. 213 of 2009, by which the learned trial court has rejected the petitioner’s prayer for discharge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that O.P. No. 2, who happened to be the wife of the petitioner, initially filed Complaint Case No. 942 of 2008 alleging the offences under Sections 4 98A , 323, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and also alleging the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (in short, ‘DP Act’), and after inquiry, the learned SDJM, Sasaram, took cognizance of the offences under Section 4 98A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act vide order dated 22.10.2008. In the said Complaint Case No. 942 of 2008, the complainant (O.P. No. 2) did not make the allegation that, on the demand made by the petitioner’s father, namely Ujagir Prasad, the co-accused, Rs. 5,75,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand) was paid; rather, O.P. No. 2 alleged in her statement in Complaint Case No. 942 of 2008 that she had been tortured for want of dowry. In fact, the complainant (O.P. No. 2) refused to go to Ghazipur where the petitioner was posted during the relevant period of time, and at that time, the presence of O.P. No. 2 was required due to the illness of the petitioner’s father. Due to the ill-behaviour of O.P. No. 2, the petitioner filed a matrimonial suit bearing Matrimonial Case No. 227 of 2008 in the court of the District Judge, Ghazipur, for restitution of his conjugal life. Prior to the complaint case of the present matter, the mother of O.P. No. 2 had filed an application before the Women Commission in which she did not make any complaint against the petitioner or any of his family members with regard to the allegation of non-return of the so-claimed Stridhan of O.P. No. 2. The petitioner’s sister, who was made co-accused in Complaint Case No. 942/2008, approached this Court for quashing of the cognizance order, and her prayer was allowed by this Court. The Complaint Case No. 213/2009, in which the order impugned has been passed, has been filed by O.P. No. 2 in the court of the SDJM at Sasaram, which has no jurisdiction to try the said case, as the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at Nirala Nagar, Ballia, in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. (now section 199 of BNSS ), the entire trial and proceeding before the court of the learned SDJM, Sasaram, is without jurisdiction. It has been further argued by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner’s father, Ujagir Prasad, who has been made accused No. 2 in Complaint Case No. 213/2009 by O.P. No. 2, is no more and died after filing of the said complaint case. The cognizance for the offence under Section 6 of the DP Act is completely bad in the eye of law, as it is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 4 68 of the Cr.P.C. (section 514 of ). Though the petitioner had challenged the cognizance order dated 22.02.2012 before this Court by way of Cr. Misc. No. 13572 of 2012 but the same was disposed of by giving the petitioner a liberty to raise all his points, including the point of cognizance, at the appropriate stage before