Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Offences pertaining to demand of dowry are offences against the society MANU/SC/0160/2020 - (10 Feb 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Arun Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) challenging the charge sheet filed against them. 
Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate and consider that the fresh criminal action can not be launched on the basis of the same cause of action, which was already settled 10 months back by way of compromise which was acted upon by both the parties. Learned Counsel further submits that the High Court has failed to consider and appreciate that the allegations as contained in the First Information Report even if taken on the face value and assumed to be correct in entirety, do not prima-facie disclose commission of any offence, much less a cognizable offence. 
Offences for which the Appellants have been charged are infact offences against society and not private in nature. Such offences have serious impact upon society and continuance of trial of such cases is founded on the overriding effect of public interests in punishing persons for such serious offences. It is neither an offence arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or such similar transactions or has any element of civil dispute thus it stands on a distinct footing. In such cases, settlement even if arrived at between the complainant and the Accused, the same cannot constitute a valid ground to quash the F.I.R. or the charge sheet. Thus the High Court cannot be said to be unjustified in refusing to quash the charge sheet on the ground of compromise between the parties. 
To constitute an offence under Section 493 of IPC, the allegations in the FIR must demonstrate that Appellant had practiced deception on the daughter of the complainant causing a false belief of existence of lawful marriage and which led her to cohabit with him. 
A perusal of the averments would go to show that ingredients to constitute an offence Under Section 493 Indian Penal Code are missing from the averments. 
 The allegations in the First Information Report in respect of Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are very specific. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 3/4 of Act are that the persons Accused should have made demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardians of a bride or a bridegroom as the case may be any dowry and/or abets the giving and taking of dowry. The allegations of the F.I.R. quoted clearly go to show that a demand of dowry of Rs. 5 Lakhs was made by the Appellants from the complainants and thus, it can not be said that no offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act are made out against the Appellants. There being direct allegations of demand of Dowry in the First Information Report, the allegations prima-facie constitute a commission of an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act and thus the charges leveled against the Appellants under Section 3/4 of the said Act, are not liable to be quashed. 
Insofar as offence under Section 493 of IPC is concerned, since F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of any offence under the said Section and thus continuance of the criminal prosecution under said Section would amount to abuse of process of the Court and the order of the High Court to that extent is liable to be set aside. However, insofar as offence against the Appellants under Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, since the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offence in the F.I.R., it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC and to quash criminal proceedings against the Appellants for the said offence. 
The charge sheet insofar as Section 493 of IPC is concerned stands quashed. However, in respect of charge sheet under Section 3 read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the Appeal stands dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Charge sheet, Quashing, Compromise</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>