RAJESH SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the matter for consideration is whether under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 demand of dowry before performing marriage is punishable under the Act or not.

(2.) IN this case a complaint was filed in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah for the prosecution of the accused persons, including the applicants for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter described as the "Act"), which was registered as complaint case No. 2994 of 1988 according to which the applicants along with their other relatives visited Etah on 28 -12 -1998 and saw the daughter of respondent No. 2 at his residence. They approved her for marriage and according to their scheduled programme to perform the ceremonies of God Bharai and Teeka. They reached at Allahabad on 31 -12 -1987 and demanded money to the tune of Rs. 50,000/ - when the respondent No. 2 showed his incapability' to pay such a huge amount. On this the ceremonies were not performed due to non -fulfilment of the demand for dowry. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202, Cr PC sum ­moned the applicants only but refused to summon the other persons.

(3.) IN the instant matter no property or valuable security was ever given or agreed to be given by either party and admittedly no performance of marriage has ever been done. Hence it cannot be said that by de ­manding some money, property or valu ­able security will come within the meaning of 'dowry' as defined in Section 2 and thus any dowry if demanded will not constitute an offence under Section 4. In view of this no offence is made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint. Hence summoning of the applicants on the basis of the complaint allegations is improper and hence the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the whole criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed.