YASH PAL GUPTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for quashing the complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Annexure P -1) and the summoning order (Annexure P -2).

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners are facing trial under Sections 406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, proceedings under the Dowry Prohibition Act are not maintainable. He relies on the decision in 1983 Recent Criminal Reports page 271 titled as Norata Ram and another v. Santosh Kumari and another in support of his own contention. It is, thus, contended that offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot stand together on the same set of facts.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and another, 1982(1) CLR page 638, it was held as under : "That the same set of facts allegedly constituting an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot possibly come within the ambit of Section 406, Indian Penal Code. This would be plainly a contradiction in terms. One offence is rested on property forming the consideration for the marriage as such, while the other visualises the entrustment and passing of dominion over property individually owned. The offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and under 406 I.P.C. cannot together on the same set of facts."