Service v. 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Superintendent of Police, Nanded
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 406, 420, 504
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ss. 3, 4
Judgment
Cause title
(Copies to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 3] Shankarrao S/o Marotrao Ingale Age : 67, Occu.: Agri. R/o Anand Nagar Chowk, Nanded .. Respondents
Smt. Varsha S. Ghanekar, Advocate h/f.
Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Applicant
Mr. N.H. Borade, APP for the Respondent-State
Mr. G.R. Sayed, Advocate for the Respondent no.3
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 29th JUNE, 2009
ORAL ORDER:-
1] The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in crime no. 99 of 2009 dated 9.4.2009 registered by (2) CR.APP. 1607.2009 Bhagyanagar Police Station, Nanded alleging offences punishable under section 420, 406, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2] The applicant agreed to get married with the complainant’s daughter. The engagement took place on 22.2.2009 at Nanded in presence of number of relatives of the complainant etc. At that time, the complainant presented the applicant with gold ornaments and also handed over a sum of Rs.4 Lac in cash for the wedding expenses. It was decided that the wedding would take place on 15.4.2009. The complainant accordingly, secured a marriage hall at Nanded but on 8.4.2009 the applicant and his relatives went to the complainant’s house at Nanded and told him that the wedding would be called off, if the complainant did not pay Rs. 5 Lac more as the dowry. It seems, on this issue there was quarrel between the parties. But the wedding was called off. The complainant filed a complaint immediately on 9.4.2009. 3] The applicant, in his defence stated that although, the wedding was fixed on 15.4.2009, he has returned all the valuable articles he has received from the complainant when he decided to call off the wedding. The applicant however, does not produce any document, showing that he had returned the (3) CR.APP. 1607.2009 articles taken from the complainant or that the complainant and the proposed bride had received all the articles from him. In a case like this, complaint of this nature would be filed only as a last resort. In such cases, since the parties belong to the same community having common relatives, they would try to resolve the dispute amicably. 4] Since the amount involved is large, in this case the applicant would have certainly obtained a receipt in respect of refund of the amount. The applicant does not have documentary proof. So his defence is not bonafide and I am not inclined to release him on anticipatory bail. The application stands rejected. Sd/- arp/29june9/cr1607.09
(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 406, 420, 504; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — ss. 3, 4.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 29 Jun 2009. The bench was A V NIRGUDE.
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.