HARINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, along with one Harbans Lal, whose name was deleted vide order dt. 15-1-1988 from the array of the petitioners, were accused in case First Information Report No. 15 dt. 26-2-1986, u/Ss. 498A/506/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (the Code in brief) and u/Ss. 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (shortly the Act). The case was investigated. Ultimately a report u/S.173 of the Cri. P.C. was filed before the trial Court. After going through the papers submitted by the prosecution, the trial Court framed charges on 11-5-1987 which have been reproduced in para 9 of the petition read as under :

(2.) This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed to challenge the said order on the grounds that : i) Sanction of the District Magistrate was necessary to enable the trial Court to take cognizance for offence u/Ss. 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and as the same was not taken, the trial Court had no jurisdiction; ii) From the facts stated in the FIR, no offence was made out; iii) Harinder Kaur petitioner 1 is the sister of Suresh Kumar petitioner 4, petitioner No. 2 Keshav Dut is the husband of petitioner 1, petitioner 3 is the mother of petitioner 4, petitioner 6 is brother of Harbans Lal petitioner 4 (since deceased) and petitioners 1 to 3 were not even present on 5-2-1986 at Nabha when the incident is alleged to have taken place; and iv) Continuance of the proceedings in the trial Court is illegal and abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently pressed into service the above grounds. I have also heard the learned counsel for the Complainant. He has opposed all the grounds, saying that no Sanction of the District Magistrate for prosecution u/Ss. 4 and 5 of the Act is required after the Act was amended in 1984. He has further argued that merely because petitioners 1 to 3 are relatives of petitioner 4, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against them. Rather, he argued that in such like cases petitioners 1 to 3 are more likely to help petitioner No. 4 and there are definite allegations against these petitioners for having committed the alleged offences. He has referred to the Dowry Prohibition Amendment Act (Act 63 of 1984) in which the provisions for obtaining the sanction for prosecution have been done away with.