SHEENA PONNACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner assails the order in CMP No.978/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate - I, Mavelikara, alleging offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) The revision petitioner alleged that the first accused married her and a child was born to them. The 2nd accused was the mother of the first accused. Later, she was harassed in connection with demand for dowry. Hence, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 3,4 and 6 of the Provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, filed CMP No.978/2016 before the Magistrate. The court below, by the impugned order, held that in the light of decision reported in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P.and another ( AIR 2015 [(SC) 1758)] the complaint cannot be entertained without exhausting the remedies under section 154(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that cognizance is to be taken under Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and not under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. This was negatived on the ground that Priyanka's case(supra) does not provide any exemption to special law and in the light of decision of this Court in Aloshia Joseph v. Rev. Dr.Joseph Kollamparampil and another (2009 (1) KHC 268).

(3.) Section 7 of of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 opens with the word " (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(2 of 1974)....". Section 7 (b) provides that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon; (i). its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or (ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recogized welfare institution or organization. Evidently, the relevant section is governed by a non obstante clause. Evidently, section (b) confers a vested right of right to initiate legal proceeding on any person independently. Further, being a special statute, it operates in its specific field. Hence, both the decisions relied on by the learned Magistrate has no application to the facts of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High court in (Annie this case. Koshy v. State of A.P.(1998 Cr.L.J. 2565) has held that offence under section 6 of the Act is being treated as a cogniziable offence and the Magistrate who is competent to takes cognizance of an offence is also competent to forward to police under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.