Kerala High Court: Discretion of Appellate Court to Waive/Deposit of Minimum 20% Fine  ||  Del. HC: Article 21A of COI Not Applicable on Being Educated in a Particular School of Choice  ||  Kar. HC: Parties Can’t be Forced to Arbitration Proceed. if Not Signatory to Joint Venture Agreement  ||  Karnataka High Court: Judicial Powers Cannot be Exercised by Conciliators in Lok Adalats  ||  Mad. HC: Registering Authorities Not Empowered to Cancel Sale Deed Through Summary Proceedings  ||  Telangana High Court: Section 18 UAPA is Penal in Nature, Needs to be Proved by Prosecution  ||  Karnataka High Court: Rights of Adopted Child of Indian Parents Cannot be Left Marooned  ||  All. HC: No Authority to Additional Chief Medical Officer to File Complaint Under PCPNDT Act  ||  Kar. HC: Cannot Prosecute Second Spouse or Their Family for Bigamy Under Section 494 IPC  ||  Calcutta High Court: Person Seeking to Contest Elections is Deemed Public Interest    

Shivendra Raizada and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. - (High Court of Allahabad) (06 Dec 2018)

Case of demand of dowry must co-relate with marriage or pre-marriage stage and not every demand after marriage will come within purview of dowry

MANU/UP/4643/2018

Criminal

Present application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been filed to quash the proceeding of case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (D.P. Act), pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The applicants submitted that in fact it is absolutely frivolous complaint and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also passed the summoning order without application of mind. No dowry was given by the father of the opposite party No. 2 in the marriage and marriage was solemnised in a very simple manner.

Allegation of demand of Rs. 80,000 does not come within the purview of dowry as defined by the Apex Court in various decisions and similarly allegations levelled against the Applicants are also not specific for issuance of summoning order or to put them to face trial as held by Apex Court.

For establishment of case of demand of dowry, that must co-relate with the marriage or pre-marriage stage and not every demand made by the Applicants after marriage will come within the purview of dowry. It may be to meet some other financial scarcity or to meet some emergent family expenses. Therefore, allegation levelled in the complaint for demand of dowry is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, it is very much clear that there is no specific allegation against any of the Applicants and allegations are also levelled upon the Applicants, who are even not residing along with applicant No. 1. In fact, it is necessarily required to make specific allegation against each and every applicants whose names are mentioned in the complaint or FIR in the matrimonial cases which is absolutely missing in present case.

Therefore, in the light of facts and law laid down by the Apex Court, the allegation of dowry as well as harassment is not sustainable. Accordingly, the proceeding was hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Tags : DOWRY DEMAND   PROCEEDINGS   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved