PIRTHI CHAND Vs. DES RAJ BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the complaint Annexure P. 1 dated 14-9-1988 under Sections 405, 406 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioners and their son Rameshwar Dass as also the summoning order Annexure P. 2 dated 13-4-1989 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chandigarh.

(2.) THE facts leading to the present petition are that one Sushma Devi daughter of Des Raj Bansal respondent was married to Rameshwar Dass on 11-3-1986. According to the respondent the marriage was performed and various articles of dowry were entrusted to the accused-persons, Sushma, however, died an un-natural death within less than three months of her marriage and in this connection a criminal case has been registered which is pending. After the death of Sushma her father-filed the complaint referred to above on 14-9-1988. In the complaint both parents of Rameshwar Dass, his two brothers and their wives were impleaded as accused. After recording preliminary evidence learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, summoned the two petitioners and their son for the offences above mentioned. Initially petition for quashing of complaint was filed by the parents Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2744 of 1990 was moved by Rameshwar Dass for permission to join as a co-petitioner, it was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16-3-1990. Again, another petition was moved by Rameshwar Das for joining as petitioner No. 3 which was registered as Criminal Misc. No. 3692 of 1990. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the miscellaneous application is allowed and Rameshwar Dass is permitted to be joined as petitioner No. 3.

(3.) THE first contention of Mr. M. M. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proviso to Section 6 (3) of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, has not been brought into force and, therefore, with the death of Smt. Sushma, the alleged criminal misappropriation had come to an end as her husband Rameshwar Das was her heir. It will be recalled that the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was inserted by Amending Act No. 43 of 1986. The proviso is to the effect that where a woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, the property in question shall be transferred to her parents if she has not left any children and shall be held in trust for such children where she has left some children and shall be ultimately transferred to such children. Shri V. K. Jhanji, learned counsel for the respondent referred to the notification G. S. R. 1185-E dated 5-11-1986 whereby the Central Government appointed 19th day of November, 1986 as the date on which the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986 (No. 43 of 1986) came into force. The said notification is published in Part VI at page 36 of 1987 Lahore Law Times. In view of the notification the proviso referred to above came into force with effect from 19-11-1986 and Sushma having not left any child her Ishtri Dhan has to be transferred to her parents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, without any merit.