L. V. JADHAV

SHANKARRAO ABASAHEB PAWAR & OTHERS

August 30, 1983

(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN

AND M. P. THAKKAR, JJ.] .

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961-Sections 2 and 4 scope of-Demand for payment of money made during marriage ceremonies-Demand pressed /ater-

Whethe~ Constitutes an offence under section 4.

High Court-lnerent power-W'hen should be exercised.

In a con1plaint filed before the Judicial Magistrate the appellant (bride's father) alleged that during the marriage ceremOnies the first respondent {bridegroom's father) had demanded a large sum of money to be paid to him as dowry and threatened that if the appellant did not pay the sum he would atop further marriage ceremonies, that even after his daughter had gone to the first respondent's house after the 1narriage the respondent's continued to demand payment of money and that this constituted an offence under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

After verifying the complaint the Judicial Magistrate issued processes to the respondents and sent summons is to the United States where tht respondents were.

Allowing the respondent's application impugning the order of the Magistrate issuing summonses, the High Court held that since there was nO allegation in the complaint that the respondents first demanded the dowry and the appellant had agreed to pay it and the respondents threafter demanded it again, no offence under sect!on 4 was made out.

In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that a mere demand for dowry, even if there was no consent to comply with that demand, would constitute an offence under section 4 of the Act.

,. Allowing the appeal,

B HELD : From a reading of section 2 of the Act, it would appear that consent to comply with demand for payment -of any property or valuable securities as 'considerat!on' for the marriage would alone make the property or \faluable security given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly ", dowry"

-;.

. ,

L.v. JADHAV v. S.A. I'AWAR ("flaradarajan, J.) 763

within the meaning: of the Act. But having regard to the dominant purpose of the Act the entries definition of ''dowry" should not be imported into section 4.

The dictionary meaning of the word 'bride' is a woman about to marry or has just been married and a 'bridegroom; is a man who is about to rilarry or has just been married. If the literal n1eaning of these words is given to the words bride and bridegroom used in the section any property or valuable 5ecurity demanded and consented to be given before the woman had become a bride or the man had become a bridegroom may not be dowry. The avowed object of the Act being to eradicate the evil Of demanding dowry, a liberal construction has to be given to the word "dowry'' to mean any property or vluabl• iiCCurity which if consented to be given on demand would be dowry within the meaning of section 2. There . is, therefore, no warrant for the re, spondents' contention that initial demand for dowry would not constitute an offence but that it would be an offence only when the demand was made again after the, party on whom it was made bad agreed to comply with it. [771 BH; 722 A]

lndt:'r Sain and Another v. The State, 1981 Ctl. L.J. 1116 approved.

The inherent power of the High Court must be exercisid sparingly and , with circumspection when there is reason to believe that the process of law is

being misused to harass a citizen. In this cas~ the High Court should hav1 D rcfuied to invoke its inherent power at the threshold to quash the proceedings.

[772 B-C]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JLTR!SD!CTION : Criminal Appea[ No. 494 of 1982.

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd December, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appln. No. 283 of 19_81.

Y. S. Chitale, V. N. Ganpule, Sirish Gupta and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Appellant. ·

V. S. Desai and G. B. Sathe for the Respondent.

P. G. Gokhale and M. N. Shroff for the State of Maharashtra.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VARAD.~RAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is -directed 8.gainst the judgment 9f a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 283 of 1981, quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 1634 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Anti Corruption), Pune. The application in the

flih <?ourt was filed by the respondents in this ap{leal, who ar~ ti\~

two accused in that criminal caserfor quashing the criminal proceedings as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, issuing processes ·

against them in that case.

The appellant L. V. Jadhav was the first respondent while State of Maharashtr'! was the second respol)dent in the application before the High Court. The first respondent hanlq1rrao Abasa\l~I> Pawar. is th~ father of the second respondent Pradeep Shankarra Pawar. There was a proposal to get the appellant's daughter Anita, a Science Graduate, married to the second respondent, a double Graduate in Engineering, working jn the United S\ates. After Anita and the second respondent approved each pher there was an engagement ceremony on 12.6.1978 at Pune and the marriage was performed at that place on 19.6.1979 after the first respondent came from the United States in May 1979.

According to the appdlant's complaint, when the marriag~ ceremonies were in .progress on 19.6.1979, both the respondents demanded a cash of Rs. 50,000 from the appellant in the presence of espectable P!"sons under the pretext , that the money wa> required for the transport of Anita and the second respo!lde11ts to the United States. The respondent> told the appellant that if he did not comply with t/lat demand by way of owry further ceremonies would not be completed. Some respectable persons who were present at that. time persuade the respondents to complete the marriage ceremonies and formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were over. The second respondent alone went to the

United States in July j979 as the passport and 'visa f(/r A, njta had to be arranged which was done some time later while Anita was staying in the house of the first responent. Anita was not sent to the United States and the respondents continued to persist in their demand for the money when she was staying in the first respondent's house. The appellant filed a complaint. before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class on 5.6.1980 against both.the respondents, alleging that they had committed an offence under s. 4 of the Dowry.

Prohibition Act, 1961 by demanding the sum of Rs. 50,000 as

mentiond above. This was done after the appllant had obtained the necessary.sanction required by the proviso to s. 4 of the Act.

The Judicial Magistrate verified the complaint and issued processes to the respondents and sent summonses to the United States where the first' respondent was staying with the second respondent at tht

time.

, r

L.V. JADHAV v. S.A. PAWAR (Varadarajan, J.) 765

The respondents challenged the Magistrate's order issuing summonses to them by filing their application in the High Court.

The learned Single Judge before whom the application originally came up for consideration referred to a Division Be.nch. The con tention of the \earned counsel for the 'respondeuts before the High Court was that even if the allegations made in the appellant's complaints were true no offence under s. 4 of the Act is disclosed, whereas for the appellant. it was contended before the High Court that the aforesaid demand for Rs. 50,000 would constitute an offence under s. 4.

Reading the definition of "dowry" given in s. 2 of the Act into s. 4, the learned judges held that for bringing a case under_ s. 4 of the Act, there must be a demand for dowry as such, that is, for any property agreed to be given as consideration for the marriage, and that as there is no allegation in the complaint that the appellant had agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000 and the respondents thereafter demanded the same no offence under s. 4 of the Act is disclosed in the complaint. In that view the learned judges allowed the respondent's application and quashed the proceedings in the appellants's complaint and the Magistrate's order issuing the processes to the respondents.

Hence this appeal by special leave.

The question for consideration is whether the allegation m!lde in the appellant's complaint that there was a demand by the respondents when the ceremonies Of the marriage of Anita with the second respondent were in progress, for the payment or' Rs. 50,000 to be 11_1ade by the appellant on pain of the marriage ceremonies not being completed if the demand was not complied with under the pretext that the said amount was required for the passage of Anita and the second respondent to the United States discloses an offence under s. 4 of the Act. It would be necessary to extract the following relevant ss. 2 to 5 and 8 of the Act for easy reference in order to consider the question :

. "2. 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 mrriae tot.he other party to the

inarriage ; or '

SUPREME COURT .REPORTS iJ9g3J s.C.R.

(b) by tlie parents 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 after the marriage as consideration for 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.

Explanation 1-:For the remove! of doubts it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the mrriage of the said parties.

Explanation II-The expression "valuable security" has the same meaning as in section 30 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. If any person after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both.

4. If any person after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six moths, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both ;

Provided that no. court shall take cognizance of any

offnce under this section except with the previous sane" tion of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf.

Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry

~]\all be void.

' \..

L.v. JADHAV v. S.A. PA WAR (Vamdarajan, J.) 767

Every offence under this Act shall be non-cogniz able, bailable and non-compoundable." A

According to the appellant's complaint, when the marriage of his daughter Anita and the second respondent, the son of the first respondent, was in progress on 19.6.1979, both the respondents 'demanded from him cash of Rs. 50, 000 in the presence of respect

able persons under the pretext that the amount was required for the pa,, age or transport . of Anita and the second respondent to the United States where the second respondent was employed at that time and they told him that if he did dot comply with their demand by way of dowry further ceremonies . in the marriage would not be completed. It is further alleged that some respectable persons who were present at that time persuaded the respondents to complete the marriage .ceremonies and formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were completed and that subsequently the second respon dent went to the United States in July 1979 alone because .the passport and visa of Anita had to be arranged which was done some time later while Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent, and the respondents continued to persist in their demand fot the money when Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent without being sent to the United States. Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents invited our at.ention to the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Inder Sain and another v. The State(11 and also of another Single Judge of the Patna High Crnrt in Koshi Prasad and Others v. State of Bihar and Othas(') and submitted that the demand for Rs. 50,000 alleged in the complaint would not constitute. an offence under s. 4 of the Act as there is no allegation in the complaint that the appellant consented to pay the amoun.t and that ith.out .consent io the pay ment the sum of Rs. 50, 000 alleged to have been demanded does not become dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act which defines "dowry" as meaning "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. parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other . person ; ----·--·--

(!) 1981 Crl. L.J. lll6.

(2) 1980 Bihar B.ar Council Journal p. 612.

at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the !!larriage ofthe said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies."

Section 2 contains two explanat!ons with which we are not concerned in this case. In the Delhi High Court's decision the question for r consideration was what constituted "consideration" for marrig~ • within the meaning of s. 2 of tbe Act, and Luthra, J, has observed : ...

, .l~

'.'Thus the definition of the word "consideration'.' leads to the conclusion that the property or valuable. security shi)uld be demanded or given whether in the past, present or. future for bringing out solemnization of marriage. After the marriage, giving a property or vain abie security by the parents of the bride cannot constitute a "consideration" for the marriage unless it was agreed at the time of or before the marriage that such property or valuable security would be given in future."

The complaint in that case did not spell out that the articles mentioned in the same were given after the marriage as a result_ of come agreement for the purpose of the marriage. The'allegations in th; complaint indicated that thoie.articles were given after the mariiage with a view to have smooth railing and continuance of good

~terial relations. The learned Judge, therefore, held that the articles given. in those circumstances did not constitute dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of tlie Act. We think that the learned judge is right in holding so, and that it is desirable that eveu such a demand should .be prohibited and made punishable in law. - .

We are concerned in the present case with a complaint in which it has been alleged that the demand for the sum of Rs. 50,000 as dowry was made when the marriave ceremonies between the appel' )ant's diiugther Anita aTid tl1e 'econd respondent were in progress, by both the respondentS: under the pretext that It was required for the passage of the paities to the marriage 10 the United States with a threat that if the amount was. not paid. the marriage ceremonies would not be completed and that there was demand for payment of the amount even after the marriage ceremonies were over when Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent after the second

respondent went away alone to the United States_because the; passport

L.V. JADHAV v. S.A PA WAR (Varadarajan, J.) 769

and visa for Anita had not been obtained by then.

The decision of even the'Patna High Court relied upon by Mr. Desai relates only to what constitutes "consideration" for the marriage within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. On the other hand, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Senior Advo cate, appearing for the appellant invited our attention to a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay.High Court in Dau/at Mansingh Aher

v. C.R. Bansi. and another(') and submitted that a mere demand for money as dowry for completing ihe marriage ceremonies on pain of not completing the ceremonies if the money was not given is sufficient to constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act even though there was no consent on the part of the appellant to comply with that demand. What appeared from the record of the case out of which. the decision of the Bombay High Court arose, was that the . accused-petitioner filed an application on 6.10.1978 raising a contention that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay had nojurisdiction to entertain and try the case because the accused and the complainant were residing outside the jurisdiction of that Court. A contention was also raised that the complaint was barred by limHation and wa5, therefore; liable to be dismissed.

However, during the arguments in the High Court it was conceded by the learned counsel for the accused-petition.er that the complaint was. filed within the period prescribed. Therefore, the only question that arose for consideration by te learned Judges of the Division Bench was the one relating to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar. Bombay to entertain and inquire into the complaint.

However, the learned Judges have observed in the judgment after extracting s. 4 of t)le Act that "what is made punishable under that provision is the demand itself, whether direct or indirect, from the parents of a bride or bridegroom". The learned Judges have further observed thus : .--

"On the avetments made in the complaint the demand is made by the accused by writing a Jetter from.

Wadala, Bombay;31. This demand was made through his elder brother who is the sonin-law of the complainant and resides at Agartala. From Agartala the said letter of demand was forwarded by the sn-in-law of the complainant to Andheri. Bombay where the complainant .. ,' is residing.

Therefore, the demand by accused was not made at Agartala.

He had only used the good offices of

(1) [1980] Cir. U.1171,

l!l

. his elder brother to forward the letter. instead of.writin:

a direct Jetter' to complainant demanding dowry, the demand was made through the elder brother who is residing at Agartala. .Still the demand is by accused and is made from Wadala at Bombay. The demand became complete when the complainant received tho letter at Andheri, Bombay. Hence the dowry was demanded at Bombay.

The offence was partly committed at Wadala, Bombay, from VI here the dowry was demanded. It was also committed at Andheri, Bombay, where the complainant received the demand letter. It is further alleged by the complainant in the complaint that the marriage of Atka which was almost settled, could not take

place due to the demand of dowry made by the accused.

This consequential result or consequence of the demand also took place at Bombay. Wadala is within the local jurisdiction of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar. Letter of demand was actually sent from Wadala, Bombay.

Hence, in any case it can safely be said that offence as alleged is partly committed at Wadala also. Though a contention was raised before the trial court that neither accused nor complainant arc residing within the jurisdiction of the Dadar Court, now it is an admitted position that accused resides at Wadala.

Even if it is held that offence became complete when complainant received letter at Andheri, Bom_bay, still it will be triable by Bombay Court. Whether it is Dadar or Andheri Court will' not make any difference. On th• other hand we are told that Dadar Court is nearer to the residence of accused. The point raised is too technical - and no prejudice will be caused to the accused nor on that count it could be said that trial is vitiated; or will result in failure of justice. Hone• there js no substanc•

in thi& contention".

It appears from a reading of this judgment that it was either not disputed before the learned Judges or that it was presumed that

a mere demand for property as consideration for the marriage taking p!Jlce would constitute an offence under s. -4 of the Act.

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is intended to prohibit the ; iving or taking of dowry, and Parliament has mad~ every off'eece

. '

Lv. SADHAV v. s.A. PAWAR (Varadarajan, J.) 771

under the Act non•compoundable by s. 8 of the Act.

By s. 5 it has been enacted that any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void. Section 3 makes abefmeht of the giving or taking of dowry an offence.

No doubt, according to s. 2 of the Act '.'dowry" is any property or valuable security given or agreed to be. given either directly or indirectly at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage but does not include dowar or mahr in the case of person to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) appear applies. It would appear from s. 2' that consent to comply with the demand for any property as consideration for the marriage would alone make the property or valuable security given or agreed .to be given directly or indirectly, ''dowry" within the meaning of the Act.

But having-regard to the dominant object of the Act whichis to stemp out the practice of demanding dowry in any shape or . form either before or after the marriage, we are of the opinion that the entire definition of word "dowry" should not be imported into s. 4 which lays down that "if any person after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly from the parents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be

punishble with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees or with both".

According to Webestet's Nw Worid Dictionary, 1962 edn .. bride means a woman who has ju; t been married or it about to be married, and bridegroom means a man who has just been married or is a, bout to be married; If we give this strict meaning of a bride or a bridegroom to the word bride or bridegroom used in s. 4 of the Act property or valuable security deml\nded and consented to be given prior to the time when the woman had. become a bride or the man had become a bridegroom, may not be "dowry" within the meaning of the Act, We are of the opinion that haing regard to the object of the Act a liberal construction has to be given to the word "dowry" used in s. 4 of the Act tci mean that any property or valuable security which if consented to be given on the demand being

- made would become dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act.

We are also of the opinion that the object of s. 4 of the Act is to discourage .the very demand for perperty or valuable security as consideration for a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for 'giving' property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under s. 3 read with

1. 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for "taking the view that the in; tial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence and that an offence would take place only whCII

. '

the demand was Diade again after the party on whom the demand. was made agreed to comply with it. The learned Magistrate was,; therefore, right in proceeding on the basis that the allegations in the complaint primafacie constitute an offence under s. 4 of the Act and: issuing processes to the respondents. The High Court, we cannot. refrain from observing, might well have refused to invoke its inherenr powers at the very threshold in order to quash the proceedings, for these powers are meant to be exercised sparingly and with cit'cullispectfon when there is renson to believe - that the process of law is lleing misused to harass a citizen. The present was not such a case ..

We find that the complaint had been filed after obtaining the previous

sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf as required by the proviso to s. 4 of the Act. Mr. P.G. Gokhale who

appeared for the second respondent, State of Maharashtra; was not in a position to tell us about what the exact stand of the State Government in this. appeal is as to whether it supports or opposes the contention of the appellant that the allegation made in the complaint constitutes an offence under s. 4 of the Act.

For the reasons stated above, we allow the appeal aud direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to take further proceedings on the complaint and dispose of the.case according to .Jaw.

P.B.R. ' Appeal al/owel

' .