NIRDOSH KUMAR Vs. PADMA RANI ALIAS MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Smt. Padma Rani was married to Ashok Kumar on May 4, 1983. On October 12, 1983, she filed a complaint (Annexure P. 5) under section 4 and 4-B of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against her husband, the latter's parents. a sister and a brother, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1 Class, Rajpura, after obtaining the requisite permission from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajpura, under Section 8-A of the Act (Annexure P.3). The petitioner Nirdosh Kumar, brother of the respondent's husband Ashok Kumar who has been arrayed as one of the accused in the said complaint has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint (Annexure P. 5) as well as the order of sanction (Annexure P. 3) on the ground that the allegations contained in the complaint do not constitute on offence under section 4 and 4-B of the Act.

(2.) IT is alleged by the respondent in the complaint (Annexure P. 5) that the accused were not satisfied with the expenses incurred by het parents at the time of marriage The accused started compelling her to bring money for purchase of a car. To placate the husband and his relations, the wife's mother gave one scooter to her husband. However, this did not satisfy the accused who pressed upon Padma Rani to bring Rs. 40,000/- in cash for the purchase of second-hand car. As this demand was not met the accused turned out Padma Rani from her house of June 11, 1983.

(3.) IT is, therefore. clear from these judgments that any property or valuable security which is either consented to be given on the demand being made or the demand of such property or valuable security itself, as consideration of the marriage, would be considered 'dowry' within the meaning of the Act. In the present case it is not even alleged in the complaint (Annexure P 5) that any demand was made by the accused persons at or before the marriage as consideration for the marriage. The allegation is that after the marriage took place the accused persons felt dissatisfied with the expenses incurred, by the parents of the respondent at the time of the marriage and they started making demands for money to purchase a car. In such circumstances the alleged demand of the accused persons made subsequent to the marriage would not fall within the definition of dowry.