SHANKARRAO ABASAHEB PAWAR Vs. L V JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two accused in Criminal Case No. 1634 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, (Anti-corruption) Court Pune have filed this petition for quashing the said criminal proceedings as also the order of issuing process against the petitioners passed in that case. It would be convenient to give in brief the allegations made by respondent No. 1 (who is a complainant in the above mentioned case) while filing the above mentioned criminal case under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is the father of petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 1 has a daughter by name Anita. She is a Graduate in Science, while petitioner No. 2 is an Engineering double Graduate working in United States. Respondent No. 1 wanted to marry his daughter, and he learnt that the petitioner No. 2 also intended to marry. After some preliminary talks, the bride and bridegroom approved each other and an engagement ceremony took place on June 12, 1978 at Pune. It appears that petitioner No. 1 had come to India, from United States in May 1979 and after his coming here the said marriage was settled and the engagement ceremony took place. In due course, the marriage was performed at Pune on June 19, 1979.

(3.) According to respondent No. 1, when the marriage ceremonies were in progress on June 19, 1979, the two petitioners demanded a cash of Rs. 50,000/- , under the pretext that this amount was required for the passage of the petitioners as also the daughter Anita. It is further contended that the demand was made in the presence of respectable persons and respondent No. 1 was told that unless he would fulfil this demand of Rs. 50,000/- by way of dowry, further marriage ceremonies would not be completed. Respondent No. 1 also alleged in the complaint that some respectable persons who were present at that time used their good offices and persuaded the petitioner to complete the marriage formalities and the ceremonies. Thus the marriage ceremonies were over. Thereafter the newly married couple went to Banglore and Utakmand. Respondent No. 1 has alleged that his son-in-law, namely petitioner No. 2 did not even see the respondent No. 1 while returning from Utakmand. However, that aspect is not very much relevant. It appears that some time in July 1979, the husband petitioner No. 2 went ahead to United States as the arrangement for passport and visa for the daughter Anita were still to be made, and these arrangements were made some time later. The complainant further alleged that the daughter-in-law Anita was staying with the father-in-law i.e. petitioner No. 1 and that arrangements for passport and visa for going to United States were also made. In paragraph 11, there is a statement that the daughter Anita was not sent to the United States and that during her stay at the house of petitioner No. 1, the accused continued to persist their demand for money.