Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 Date of Decision: 4.5.2009 Sonu @ Daljit Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Simranjit Kaur ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal,Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondent. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioners challenge an order dated 11.12.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, accepting the revision filed by the respondent and setting aside the order dated 11.11.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kaithal, whereby the petitioners have been discharged. The respondent/complainant and petitioner no.1 were engaged to be married in the month of December 2004. The respondent alleges that at the time of the ring ceremony, a large sum of money was spent. The marriage was, however, called off as the petitioners raised a demand for a car, a colour T.V., an Air Conditioner and cash of Rs.2.00 lacs. The respondent filed the present complaint incorporating these facts and alleging the commission of offences under Sections 420,406,500, 498-A and Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 2 Sections 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After recording preliminary evidence, the trial court dismissed the complaint by holding that a prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. The respondent filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal. Vide order dated 11.12.2006, the revisional court accepted the revision, set aside the order dated 11.11.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate and remitted the matter to the trial court for a fresh consideration. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as the proposed marriage was called off, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted under the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is further submitted that in the absence of any allegation of deception, fraud or dishonest intention to induce the respondent to deliver property or any allegation of entrustment of property and/or misappropriation thereof, the offences of cheating and/or misappropriation are not made out. It is submitted that the complaint is devoid of any particulars as to the ingredients of cheating and misappropriation. It is prayed that in this view of the matter, the present petition be accepted, the order dated 11.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, be set aside and the petitioners be discharged. Counsel for the respondent by reference to specific allegations in the complaint submits that the respondent has levelled allegations of deception, fraud and dishonest intention to induce the parents of the complainant to part with property under the false pretext of a marriage. The dowry articles, which are detailed in the complaint were entrusted to the petitioners but were not returned. As regards the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it is submitted that the Dowry Prohibition Act applies to demands of dowry before, during or after the marriage and, therefore, the Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 3 petitioners are liable, irrespective of the fact that the marriage was called off. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the complaint is at the pre- charge stage and the arguments addressed by counsel for the petitioners can be raised before the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the complaint, and the orders passed by the Magistrate and the revisional court. A perusal of the definition of the word “dowry”, as contained in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, clearly suggests that dowry would include any property agreed to be given either directly or indirectly before, during or after a marriage. In order to place the aforementioned conclusion in its correct perspective, it would be appropriate to reproduce the definition of dowry as contained in Section 2 of the Act. “2. Definition of 'dowry' – 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 parent 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 any time after the marriage) in connection with 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.” Dowry as a demand for property is inextricably linked to a marriage and, is therefore, prohibited prior to, during or after the marriage. Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 4 The fact that the demand was raised prior to or the marriage or that the marriage did not take place is therefore, entirely irrelevant and would not absolve an accused of his culpability, if prima facie established. As regards the allegations with respect to the commission of offences of cheating, misappropriation and intimidation, the averments in the complaint duly supported by the complainant and her witnesses are sufficient to summon the petitioners. Even otherwise, pre-charge evidence is in progress. The petitioners would, therefore, be at liberty to put forth their defence before the trial court. Consequently, I find no error in the order of the revisional court dated 11.12.2006 setting aside the order dated 11.11.2006 passed by the trial court. Dismissed. 4.5.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE Crl.Rev.No.207 of 2007 5