1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Crl.R.C (MD).No.642 of 2011 K.Karuppasamy ... Petitioner vs. 1. P.Ayyadurai 2. A.Pushpam 3. A.Kumanavel 4. A.Bharathidasan 5. K.Vanitha 6. R.Tamilmalar ... Respondents Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C against the order, dated 10.02.2011 passed in Cr.M.P.No.6808 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. For petitioner : Mr.N.Sankar Ganesh For respondents : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar ORDER This criminal revision has been preferred under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., challenging the order, dated 10.02.2011 made in Crl.M.P.No.6808 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. As per the complaint given by the revision petitioner herein before the Court below, marriage was solemnized between Meiyappan, son of the revision petitioner and one Valarmathi, daughter of the first respondent on 13.12.2004 at Dindigul. Subsequently, the said Valarmathi filed a complaint, based on which, a case was registered in C.C.No.557 of 2008 against the petitioner and seven others under Sections 498 (A), 406 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the petitioner, the said Valarmathi has given statement that her parents had given dowry at the request of the revision petitioner and his family members. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that as per law, even giving dowry is also an offence and therefore, based on the statement given by the said Valarmathi, the respondents herein are also liable for criminal prosecution in view of disbursing dowry amount. The Court below, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition, in view of Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act. Aggrieved by which, this revision has been preferred. 5. It is not in dispute that as per Section 498 (A) IPC, whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty are liable for punishment. So far as Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition is concerned, if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry are liable for punishment. 6. It is seen that Section 7 (3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as follows : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act." 7. As per this sub-section, statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence punishable under the Act shall not be subject to a prosecution under the Act and therefore, there is legal immunity available as per the section of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Further, though demanding dowry as well as providing dowry are against law, in the present social condition only on a compelling circumstance, demand of dowry is being accepted by the parents of the bride. Considering the same, as per Section 7 (3) of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the immunity is given from prosecuting the persons, who were in a compelling circumstance. In view of the immunity available as per law, this Court is of the view that there is no prima facie case made out against the respondents herein. 8. Therefore, I could find no error or infirmity in the impugned order, so as to warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul. Tsvn GH : 09.12.2011 : 2p/2c Crl.R.C.(MD).No.642 of 2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/