Criminal Petition No. 10251 of 2010 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Criminal Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 420
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
Judgment
1 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.160 of 2010 on the file of Women P.S., CCS, Hyderabad. The above crime was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the complaint of the second respondent. 2 A copy of the complaint filed by the second respondent is placed on record. In the complaint dated
22.03.2010 it is alleged by the second respondent herein that her daughter by name Soni Rachori was engaged to
marry to the first petitioner on 10.04.2009 in IMI function hall, situated at Kothi, Hyderabad and that she spent nearly Rs.1,50,000/-. At the time of engagement the petitioners have agreed for Rs.1.00 lakh cash as dowry, four tolas of gold, one Pulsur motor cycle and other household articles and they have agreed to perform the marriage in the month of November 2009. The second respondent further alleges that in spite of the same the petitioners are delaying the marriage and it is further alleged that the petitioners are demanding Rs.5.00 lakhs as cash towards dowry apart form other gifts as demanded earlier. In the complaint it is further stated that she is unable to meet the demands as she is a widow and helpless lady. 3 In this Criminal Petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as there was no allegation of passing of any amount towards dowry, no case is made out against the petitioners for the alleged offences.
4 In the complaint it is clearly stated that though the petitioners have agreed to accept Rs.1.00 lakh at the time of engagement, but after engagement, they are demanding Rs.5.00 lakhs towards dowry. Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whoever makes a demand directly or indirectly from the parents or other guardian of the bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, is punishable imprisonment for a term not less than six months and also with fine which may extend up to Rs.10,000/-. Merely because there is no allegation of passing any amount towards dowry as demanded, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Mere demand itself is also an offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 5 In any event, having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, it is a case for investigation by the police and in view of the pendency of the investigation, I see no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage in exercise of powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6 This Court has initially granted interim stay for a period of four weeks.
Operative part
But it is stated that no steps have been taken to arrest the petitioners and the investigation is still pending. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this Criminal Petition with a direction to the police concerned to complete the investigation, if not already completed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without arresting the petitioners till the completion of the investigation. However, it is made clear that if the statements of the petitioners are required for the purpose of investigation, this order will not preclude to record the statements of the petitioners during the course of investigation. 7 With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
21.12.2011 Kvsn --------------------------------- R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Criminal Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.