KUIJIT KAUR Vs. KHEM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to this revision petition are that Khem Singh, father of Rajdeep Kaur, filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ropar, on the allegations that the marriage of his daughter with Prem Singh accused took place on 15th March, 1981. At the time of marriage the complainant had given utensils, ornaments and clothes worth about Rs. 20,295.95 and Rs. 8000.00 as gift to his daughter. After the marriage Prem Singh, his father Ujagar Singh, mother Ishar Kaur and sisters Kuijit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur started demanding Rs. 25,000.00 more as dowry and were saying that otherwise they would not permit her (i.e. Rajdeep Kaur) to live in the house. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 21st March, 1981; Ujagar Singh asked his life Ishar Kaur and daughters Kuljit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur to remove the ornaments of Rajdeep Kaur which they did on 22nd March, 1981 Prem Singh and Ujagar Singh brought Rajdeep Kaur to her parents village and told the complainant that as he had not given Rs. 25,000.00 therefore they would not keep his daughter with them.

(2.) After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned all the accused, Kuljit Kaur, Manjit Kaur and Paramjit Kaur, who are unmarried minor girls, have filed this petition under Section: 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings against them.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in that complaint or during the preliminary evidence it was not alleged that the present petitioner received or demanded any dowry at the time of marriage of Rajdeep Kaur with Prem Singh nor there was any allegation to the effect that the amount of Rs. 25,000.00 which the accused party is said to be now demanding after the marriage was agreed, upon to be paid as dowry and therefore, this demand does not fall within the definition of dowry and thus no offence under Sections 3, 4, and 4-B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as. the Act) has been committed by the petitioners. I am of the opinion that the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners has force. Dowry has been defined in section 2 of the Act as follows: - In this Act dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person; to either party to the marriage or to any other person. at or before or after ,the marriage as-consideration for the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.