NARENDRA KUMAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner, invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing of an order dated 10.7.2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Katihar by which Cr. Revision No. 30 of 2001 filed by Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 was allowed, as a result of which, the order of cognizance dated 28.2.2001 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 in Complaint Case No. 37 of 2001 has been set aside.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that, the petitioner had filed a complaint case in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar vide Complaint Case No. 37 of 2001, alleging therein, commission of offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant for the negotiation of marriage of his daughter had approached the father of the Opposite Party No. 2 and husband of Opposite Party No. 3. Father of Opposite Party No. 2 agreed for his marriage with the daughter of the complainant. After the settlement of marriage, the complainant gave a gift of one wrist watch, a golden chain and a gold ring to Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 also gifted some clothes and gold ring to the daughter of the complainant in token of acceptance of the marriage in the month of June, 1999. Unfortunately, the father of Opposite Party No. 2 died on 14.10.1999 before solemnization of the marriage. After the death of father of the accused, solemnization of the marriage was kept in abeyance for one year. After expiry of the period of one year, the complainant alongwith others visited the house of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 3 and requested to fix the date for solemnization of the marriage. However, the accused persons started demanding dowry of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground that now the Opposite Party No. 2 was appointed as a teacher on compassionate ground as well as refused to solemnize marriage on the ground that earlier negotiation was finalized by the father of the accused no. 1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on 2004 (2) P.L.J.R. 64 (SC) Reema Agarwal Vs Anupam & Ors. It was submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case Section 4 was applicable and the learned Magistrate had rightly taken cognizance of the offence which was not required to be interfered with by the learned Sessions Judge that too while entertaining a Criminal Revision petition. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken the court through the provision of Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and explained that as per definition of Dowry under Section 2 of the Act it was a clear cut case of application of Section 4 of the Act.