TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Abasaheb Pawar is the father of the second respondent Pradeep Shankarra Pawar. There was a proposal to get the appellant s daughter Anita, a Science Graduate, married to the second respondent, a double Graduate in Engineering, working in the United States. After Anita and the second respondent approved each other there was an engagement ceremony on 12.6.1978 at Pune and the marriage was performed at that place on 19.6.1979 after the first respondent came from the United States in May 1979. According to the appellant s complaint, when the marriage ceremonies were in progress on 19.6.1979, both the respondents demanded a cash of ₹ 50,000 from the appellant in the presence of respectable persons under the pretext that the money was required for the transport of Anita and the second respondents to the United States. The respondent told the appellant that if he did not comply with that demand by way of dowry further ceremonies monies would not be completed. Some respectable persons who were present at that time persuade the respondents to complete the marriage ceremonies and formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were over. The second respondent alone went to the Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remonies of the marriage of Anita with the second respondent were in progress, for the payment of ₹ 50,000 to be made by the appellant on pain of the marriage ceremonies not being completed if the demand was not complied with under the pretext that the said amount was required for the passage of Anita and the second respondent to the United States discloses an offence under s. 4 of the Act. It would be necessary to extract the following relevant ss. 2 to 5 and 8 of the Act for easy reference in order to consider the question: 2. In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I-For the removel of doubts it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their demand for the money when Anita was saying in the house of the first respondent without being sent to the United States. Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents invited our attention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Inder Sain and another v. The State(1) and also of another Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Kashi Prasad and others v. State of Bihar and others(2) and submitted that the demand for ₹ 50,000 alleged in the complaint would not constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act as there is no allegation in tile complaint that the appellant consented to pay the amount and that without consent to the payment the sum of ₹ 50,000 alleged to have been demanded does not become dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act which defines dowry as meaning any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person; at or before or after the marriage as considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon by Mr. Desai relates only to what constitutes consideration for the marriage within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. On the other hand, Dr; Y.S. Chitale, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant invited our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Daulat Mansingh Aher v. C.R. Bansi and another(1) and submitted that a mere demand for money as dowry for completing the marriage ceremonies on pain of not completing the ceremonies if the money was not given is sufficient to constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act even though there was no consent on the part of the appellant to comply with that demand. What appeared from the record of the case out of which the decision of the Bombay High Court arose, was that the accused-petitioner filed an application on 6.10.1978 raising a contention that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the case because the accused and the complainant were residing outside the jurisdiction of that Court. A contention was also raised that the complaint was barred by limitation and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, during the arguments in the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that offence became complete when complainant received letter at Andheri, Bombay, still it will be triable by Bombay Court. Whether it is Dadar or Andheri Court will not make any difference. On tho other hand we are told that Dadar Court is nearer to the residence of accused. The point raised is too technical and no prejudice will be caused to the accused nor on that count it could be said that trial is vitiated; or will result in failure of justice. Hence there is no substance in this contention . It appears from a reading of this judgment that it was either not disputed before the learned Judges or that it was presumed that a mere demand for property as consideration for the marriage taking place would constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is intended to prohibit the giving or taking of dowry, and Parliament has made every offence under the Act non-compoundable by s. 8 of the Act. By s. 5 it has been enacted that any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void. Section 3 makes abetment of the giving or taking of dowry an offence. No doubt, according to s. 2 of the Act dowry is any property or valuable security given o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitute an offence and that an offence would take place only when the demand was made again after the party on whom the demand was made agreed to comply with it. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, right in proceeding on the basis that the allegations in the complaint prima facie constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act and issuing processes to the respondents. The High Court, we cannot refrain from observing, might well have refused to invoke its inherent powers at the very threshold in order to quash the proceedings, for these powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection when there is reason to believe that the process of law is being misused to harass a citizen. The present was not such a case. We find that the complaint had been filed after obtaining the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf as required by the proviso to s. 4 of the Act. Mr. P.G. Gokhale who appeared for the second respondent, State of Maharashtra, was not in a position to tell us about what the exact stand of the State Government in this appeal is as to whether it supports or opp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
