NORATA RAM Vs. SANTOSH KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint lodged by Smt. Santosh Kumari under section 406, Indian Penal Code against her husband Subhash Chander respondent No. 2 her father -in -law Norata Ram petitioner and her mother -in -law Shella Devi (petitioner No. 2) are that Santosh Kumar and Subhash Chander married in year 1974. It is alleged in the complaint that tat that time she was given some articles and gold ornaments worth Rs. 22,600/ - as dowry and the same were entrusted to her husband Subhash Chander. As he failed to deliver the same to her demand, therefore, he in connivance with the other was guilty of the commission of offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code and under the Dowry Prohibition Act. After recording preliminary evidence, learned trial Magistrate summoned the two petitioners and Subhash Chander.

(2.) THE other aspect of the matter is that before the present proceedings, Subbash Chander had filed a petition for dissolution of his marriage with Santosh Kumari. He succeeded in getting a decree in her favour. Santohs Kumari then preferred F.A.O. No. 33 -M of 1981 in this Court. During the pendency thereof the parties arrived at some compromise. The learned single judge passed the following order on 22nd July, 1982 : - "By this application, the wife wants to withdraw the appeal because there has been settlement between the parties. Wife has admitted before me that a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - has been paid to her in cash in lieu of marriage expenses and price of articles of dowry in pursuance of the compromise and now she has no claim against her husband. The husband has also filed an affidavit on the same lines as is the wife's application. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appeal is dismissed as withdraws. The parties shall bear their own costs."

(3.) IN spite of service Santosh Kumari has not appeared in this Court to oppose the present petition. It appears that she does not want to pursue the complaints in question. That apart, leaned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vinod Kumar Sethi and others v. State of Punjab and Anr. 1982(1) C.L.R. 638, wherein it was held : - "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, whilst the other visualises the entrustment and passing of dominion over property individually owned. The offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and under Section 406, I.P.C. thus cannot stand together on the same set of facts."