IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 721 of 2000 Date of decision : March 27.3.2008 State of H.P. …Petitioner Versus. Trilok Chand. & Ors. …Respondent(s). Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . Whether approved for Reporting ? No For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotora, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Ms. Shivani Kanwar vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan in Criminal case No. 58/2 of 1997 decided on 2.3.2000, whereby he acquitted the respondents of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Smt. Sucheta Kumari was married to one Shri Naresh Kumar. Respondent-accused 1 and 3 are parents of Naresh Kumar and respondents 2 and 4 are his brother and sister, respectively. Admittedly, Naresh Kumar was suffering from a serious illness and his kidneys had collapsed. The case set up by the complainant is that the respondents demanded dowry and - 2 - misappropriated her dowry articles. The respondents denied these allegations. The story as set up by the prosecution is that the complainant was married to Naresh Kumar on 31.5.1993. A few months later, the kidneys of Naresh Kumar stopped functioning and he was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. He was thereafter shifted to Hyderabad and kidney transplant was done. According to the statement of complainant, accused persons asked her to bring Rs. 30,000 - 35,000/- as dowry to meet the expenses of her ailing husband. She further stated that she was provided Rs.25,000/- as assistance by the Haryana Government. According to the complainant, during the course of the treatment of her husband, respondents kept asking her for money and when she could not get the money, she was beaten and thrown out of her matrimonial home. In between her husband expired. Even if the statement of the complainant is taken at its face value, no offence is made out. Furthermore, she in her cross- examination has admitted that she had got married to Naresh Kumar in a temple by exchanging garlands and that this marriage took place without the consent of her parents or the parents of Naresh Kumar. Therefore, the question of giving any dowry by her parents does not arise. Even if, her statement is accepted to be true, it is apparent that her in-laws spent a huge amount on the treatment of her husband. She admits that the entire business of her father-in-law failed and she shifted to Chandigarh where he took up a private service to meet the - 3 - expenditure of the treatment of Naresh Kumar. If during the treatment some request was made to her parents also this does not amount to a demand for dowry. It is apparent that no dowry was given at the time of the marriage of the complainant and therefore, the question of misappropriation of the dowry does not arise. Similarly, in respect of Section 498A, there is no proof that cruelty, if any, had any connection with the dowry. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. March 27, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.