UMA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Uma Devi, in her complaint to the police alleged that she was married to accused Sunil Garg s/o Subhash C.Garg on 21st April, 2008. She claimed that before marriage, her 'roka ceremony was performed on 28th January, 2008 and 'God-Bharai ceremony was performed on 15th April, 2008. Before 'God-Bharai ceremony, her father-in-law held several meetings with her father on the issue of expenses to be incurred in her marriage. Her father-in-law insisted that 15/16 lacs be spent in her marriage but her father showed his inability and promised that he will not leave any stone unturned in the marriage. Petitioner<APL> Uma Devi </APL>further claimed in her complaint that her father-in-law told her father to pay Rs.5 lacs in cash, in lieu of the car which he intended to give her in the marriage on the pretext that he would purchase the vehicle himself. Thus, her father was forced to give Rs.5 lacs, in cash, to her father-in-law through her cousin brothers Rakesh and Suresh. It was even insisted that the jewellery, furniture and other articles of dowry should be of very good quality.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.2, as a counter-blast to the aforesaid FIR, filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking directions for registration of FIR under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act( hereinafter referred to as The Act) read with Sections 384/506/34 IPC against the petitioner and her parents and others. Respondent No.2 claimed in the said FIR that a bare perusal of the complaint filed by petitioner<APL> Uma Devi </APL>along with the list of dowry articles would show that the petitioner and others are guilty of giving and abetting dowry in violation of the provisions of The Act. It is also alleged in the FIR that all the accused persons are continuously humiliating, harassing, torturing and threatening the complainant Sunil Garg and his parents for settlement amount for separation and they have been threatening that if the demand of Rs.25 lacs is not met, they would implicate whole family of the complainant Sunil Garg and ensure that they are sent behind bars. It is also alleged in the complaint that brothers of the petitioner, namely, Bharat and Pradeep, named as accused No.4 and 5 in the FIR, also threatened to kill the complainant if he failed to pay the demanded amount of Rs.25 lacs.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has argued in favour of the impugned order of learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 21st October, 2009 as also the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision dated 2nd June, 2010. Learned counsel submitted that learned M.M. has rightly ordered registration of FIR on the basis of allegations in the petition of respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the reason that as per Section 3 of The Act, giving of dowry is also prohibited and is a punishable offence. Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the offence under Section 3 & 4 of The Act, there are specific allegations in the complaint that the petitioner and her family members are continuously harassing and threatening respondent No.2 and his family members to pay Rs.25 lacs as separation amount to the petitioner, or they would get the entire family of respondent No.2 implicated in a criminal case. Learned counsel further submitted that there is also a specific allegation that brothers of the petitioner had threatened to kill respondent No.2 if he failed to pay Rs.25 lacs to the petitioner. Respondent No.2, in support of his contention, has relied upon the judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in the matter of Neera Singh Vs. State(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 138(2007), Delhi Law Times 152.