AJITA DAVID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision case filed under section 397 read with 401 of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure to set aside the order dated 31.3.2008 passed in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2008 in C.C.No,8649 of 2007 by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.131 of 2008 in C.C.No,8649 of 2007 dated 31.3.2008 dismissing the petition filed under section 319 read with section 190 of the Code of CRIMINAL Procedure seeking to implead the father of the de facto complainant as accused in a case under Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE de facto complainant Judy Manoj filed a complaint as against her husband Manoj David, her sister-in-law Ajita David and her brother-in-law Ujwal David alleging harassment demanding dowry. THE investigating officer laid final report as against the aforesaid three accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. THE father of the de facto complainant has stated during the course of investigation that there was a demand of dowry of 100 sovereigns of gold ornaments by the accused even prior to the marriage. THE father of the de facto complainant, having not acceded to such a demand, provided 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her daughter, the de facto complainant and 5 sovereigns of gold chain, 3 sovereigns of bracelet and 1-1/2 sovereigns of diamond ring to the first accused as dowry. THE said statement of the father of the de facto complainant is also found incorporated in the description of the offence detailed in the final report submitted by the investigating official.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the ambit of section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 which proposed to punish not only the receiver of dowry but also the giver of dowry. Referring to section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that though protection is provided from charging a person who is aggrieved by the offence under section 7(1)(b)(ii), the parents of the aggrieved wife do not fall under the category of person aggrieved by the offence. THErefore, the exemption contemplated under section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 does not apply to the father of the de facto complainant, who purportedly gave dowry. It is his further submission that even before the case reaches the stage of trial, the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, while taking cognizance of the case as per section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is duty bound to array all the persons against whom offences have been made out. THErefore, it is his submission that when the giver of the dowry is also punishable under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, he cannot claim any exemption under section 7(3) of the said Act. THE learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is bound to act under section 190 and take cognizance as against the father of the de facto complainant also, it is contended.