9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 406 IPC. 2. Quashing of the complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Quashing of the Complaint under Section 406 IPC The applicants sought to quash the complaint under Section 406 IPC, arguing that no offence was made out based on the allegations. The complaint alleged that the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law of the complainant's daughter had misappropriated her dowry items. The applicants contended that there was no entrustment of these properties, a necessary ingredient for constituting an offence under Section 406 IPC. They argued that even if the properties belonged to the bride, she could recover them through a civil suit but not through criminal prosecution under Section 406 IPC. The court referenced the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi v. State of Punjab, which held that the concept of entrustment of property in a matrimonial home is incompatible with the nature of conjugal relationships. The court categorized the property into three types: exclusive use of the bride, joint use by the couple, and exclusive use by the husband or his family. It was emphasized that the possession within a matrimonial home should be regarded as joint, and mere strained relations do not convert joint possession into entrustment. The court found that the allegations in the complaint did not specify any clear act of entrustment. The averment in the complaint was vague and did not constitute entrustment within the meaning of Section 405/406 IPC. The court agreed with the Full Bench decision in Vinod Kumar's case, emphasizing that the same set of facts could not constitute an offence under both the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 406 IPC. The court concluded that the complaint under Section 406 IPC was not maintainable and quashed the proceedings. Issue 2: Quashing of the Complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act The applicants also sought to quash the complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, arguing that the allegations did not constitute an offence under the Act. The complaint detailed various demands for dowry made at different stages of the marriage ceremonies. The court noted that the Supreme Court in L.V. Jadhav v. Shankerrao had clarified that an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act could be made out based on such demands. The court found that the allegations in the complaint prima facie made out an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The complaint had been instituted with the necessary sanction of the District Magistrate. Therefore, the court held that there was no justification for quashing the complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act. Conclusion: 1. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 676 of 1981: The court allowed the application and quashed the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3021 of 1979 under Section 406 IPC. 2. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2753 of 1981: The court dismissed the application, upholding the maintainability of the complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The stay orders earlier granted were vacated.
|
