In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-27142 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:15.9.2010 Mata Din and others .....Petitioners v. Ramotar .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate for the petitioners. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 20.10.2009 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul has been dismissed. The respondent filed a criminal complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (`Act' – for short) and Section 506 Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul vide order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure-P.2) has summoned the petitioners. It has been noticed that the case of the complainant (respondent) is that on 28.1.2007 in a ring ceremony the accused persons (petitioners) agreed for the marriage of accused No.1 Mahabir Parsad (petitioner No.4) with Rajesh Kumari, who is Cr. Misc. No.M-27142 of 2010 [2] the daughter of the complainant-respondent without any dowry. At the time of ring ceremony, accused No.1 Mahabir Parsad (petitioner No.4) was unemployed. In the ring ceremony a sum of Rs.50,000/- were spent by the complainant. After, 3-4 months Mahabir Parsad (petitioner No.4) was selected in the Rajasthan Police. The accused (then told the complainant) that Mahabir Parsad (petitioner No.4) will marry the complainant's daughter only if Rs.1,50,000/- and an Indica car is given in dowry. The complaint was sent to SHO, Police Station Sadar, Narnaul for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The SHO in his inquiry report dated 4.9.2007 duly corroborated the case of the complainant. Besides, it has been observed that the case of the complainant has also been corroborated by the witnesses, namely, Ramotar (PW-1), Rajesh Kumari (PW-2) and Jagat Singh (PW-3). Therefore, it was observed that the accused persons be summoned for committing offence under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners aggrieved against the same preferred a revision petition before the Sessions Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 20.10.2009 has dismissed the revision. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no offence of dowry had been committed as the marriage had not been solemnized nor any demand was made by the accused. However, it was observed that it was clear from the photographs as well as the statements of PWs that `Gaud' ceremony was performed and cash and clothes were given as gift to the persons present from the side of the accused (petitioners) who were present at the time of `Gaud' ceremony. It was further observed that no doubt marriage had not been solemnized but the demand of dowry in any shape before or after the marriage is covered Cr. Misc. No.M-27142 of 2010 [3] under the definition of dowry and naturally in this case the accused have demanded the dowry. Therefore, it was observed that there was sufficient ground to summon the accused (petitioners) for the said offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the provisions of Section 4 of the Act and contended that the same relates to demand for dowry directly or indirectly from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. It is submitted that the word bride or bridegroom would show that the parties have to be married. It is submitted that there is no bride or bridegroom till there is marriage. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that demand for dowry in any shape before or after the marriage is covered under the definition of dowry. Section 2 of the Act defines `dowry' to mean any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other to the marriage or 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. Therefore, the definition of dowry indeed covers any demand made before marriage in connection with the marriage. The allegations of the complainant that Mahabir Parsad (petitioner No.4) whose ring ceremony/`Gaud' ceremony was done with the daughter of the complainant had raised a demand of Rs.1,50,000/- and an Indica car after he Cr. Misc. No.M-27142 of 2010 [4] has been selected in the Rajasthan Police. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the orders passed by the lower Courts below is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. September 15, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*