DARSAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DARSHAN Singh, Jagdev Singh, Bhag Singh and Ram Piari Petitioners who are the husband, brother of the husband, father -in -law and mother -in -law of Smt. Nirmala Devi, have filed this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying therein that the order dated 22nd March, 1978, of the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam (Shri Charanjit Jawa), by which they were directed to be charge -sheeted under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as amended by the Dowry Prohibition (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1976, hereinafter referred to as the Act and the proceedings initiated in pursuance of that, order, including framing of a charge -sheet etc. which were pending against them in that Court may be quashed.

(2.) THE facts of the case which are necessary for the disposal of this petition may briefly be stated as follows. Smt. Nirmala Devi moved an application, dated 18th October, 1977, under Section 8 -A of the Act before the District Magistrate, Sangrur, praying therein that the necessary sanction for prosecution of the four accused who are the Petitioners, mentioned above, in the present petition, under Sections 3, 44 -B and 6 of the Act and also under Sections 323 and 406, Indian Penal Code, in respect of which a complaint duly drafted along with the list of articles viz., ornaments, clothes, furniture, utensils, etc., given as dowry at the time of her marriage with Darshan Singh Petitioner on 23rd November, 1976 was attached, be granted. The District Magistrate, - -vide his memo, dated 31st October, 1977, sent that application along with its enclosures Co the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sunam, for investigation and making report to him, thereafter. The said Deputy Superintendent of Police got the First Information Report No. 332, dated 16th November, 1977, registered against the Petitioners at Police Station, Sunam and thereafter conducted investigation in the case and ultimately submitted his report to the District Magistrate, Sangrur, to the effect that a Prima facie; case under Section 4 -A of the act was made out against all the four accused, the Petitioners in the present petition. On this, the District Magistrate, Sangrur, - -vide his order, dated 17th February, 1978, granted sanction for prosecution of the accused and sent a copy of that order to Smt. Nirmala Devi complainant also. On receiving that copy, Smt. Nirmala Devi did not file any complaint as required under Section 7 of the Act. Rather, the police presented a Challan under Section 4 -A of the Act in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sunam, against all the four accused. The learned Judicial Magistrate, - -vide his detailed order, dated 22nd March, 1978, rejected the objection raised by the accused -Petitioners that the prosecution had not been launched within one year from the date of the marriage of Nirmala Devi with Darshan Singh and as such, the same was time -barred and found that the perusal of the documents and statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded during investigation and also other material placed on the file prima facie showed that the four accused had committed an offence under Section 4 of the Act and therefore, directed that they be charged accordingly. In pursuance of that order, all the four accused were charged by that Court on 7th April, 1978, as under:

(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and have fully appreciated the same in the light of the record of the trial Court. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that since a prima facie offence made out against the accused after the conclusion of investigation conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police was under Section 4 and not under Section 4 -A of the Act, as reported by the Deputy Superintendent Police, the learned Magistrate could take cognizance of that offence only on a complaint filed by a competent person as laid down in Section 7(2) of the Act and that as no complaint was filed by any such competent person and only a police report under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was presented on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Act, the entire proceedings taken by him, including summoning of the accused making order directing for framing of a charge under Section 4 of the Act against them and also his act of framing a charge under Section 4 of the Act, stand vitiated find a good deal of force in the above argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Section 7 of the Act reads as under: