IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. M. M. O. No. 113 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.4.2009 Alok Anchal …..Petitioner Versus Sanjay Chauhan. ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No.. For the petitioner: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For respondent. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J(Oral). Heard and gone through the record. Petitioner-Alok Anchal herein has sought quashing of the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The facts in short are that a matrimonial, with respect to the marriage of Km. Anupama was published in Hindustan Times, a daily news paper dated 18.1.2004. Petitioner got attracted to it. He along with his relatives came to Solan at the parental house of Anupama to see her. The talks materialized and the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2 date for the engagement was settled on 5.3.2004 which was performed and completed on that day. Thereafter the marriage ceremonies were agreed to be performed on 27th March, 2004 in ‘Arya Samaj Mandir’ at Solan. It is alleged that though the execution of the affidavits were not necessary however the affidavits were prepared and the affidavit of the petitioner was given to him for his signature but he did not sign it but he demanded cash of Rs. 20,000,00/- ( Twenty lacs) in dowry which could not be arranged. It is also alleged that necessary ‘Shagun’ and gifts worth Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the petitioner and his relatives. The marriage-cards were also got printed. On 27th March, 2004, the petitioner did not turn up for solemnizing his marriage, as such the brother of the bride Sh.Sanjay Chauhan informed the police to take necessary action against him. Many times Hukamnamas were sent but the petitioner did not appear before the police, as such said Sh.Sanjay Chauhan filed the complaint before the trial Court under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) wherein preliminary evidence was recorded. Finding reasonable grounds against the petitioner he was summoned as an accused which has been challenged in this petition. 3 In fact, vide H.P. Act 39 of 1978, section 8-A was inserted in the ‘Act’ which came into force w.e.f. 4.12.1978. It reads as under: “Cognizance of offences—No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or a complaint made by a person aggrieved by the offence, as the case may be, within one year from the date of the commission of the offence: Provided that no police officer of the rank lower than that of the Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any case registered under this Act. Provided further that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, having jurisdiction in the area” On the perusal of the above section it is clear that the provisos added to it are mandatory in nature. In the instant case, there is no compliance of second proviso as the complainant has not taken the previous sanction of the District Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the alleged offence against the accused petitioner is wrong and illegal. Accordingly, the 4 petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. Cr.M.P.No. 510/2006. Infructuous. (Surinder Singh), Judge. April 7,2009 (R)