SRIKANTA KRISHNA GHOSH Vs. INDU KUMARI GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to quash criminal proceeding pending against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dumb on the allegation of commission of an offence punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (No. 28 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Indu Kumari Ghosh the opposite party (complainant) an unmarried girl and the petitioners are co-villagers resident of village Kakania P.S. Saraivahat in the district of Santhal Parganas. The petitioner No.1 is also unmarried and other petitioners are his family members. The father of the complainant had employed petitioner No.1 as a private tutor to teach her daughter. In course of his employment, petitioner No.1 became very intimate with the opposite party (complainant) and they fell in love with each other. The petitioner No.1 promised to marry the complainant without dowry and this offer was accepted by the girl. Further prosecution case is that petitioner No.1 induced the complainant and took her to a temple on the 14th February, 1980 and Put a garland in her neck and the latter also garlanded the petitioner. After exchange of garland the complainant was made to believe that she had become married wife of the petitioner No. 1 and started sexual intercourse with her as assault of which she became pregnant.

(3.) When the fact of pregnancy became known to the family members of the parties the father of the girl approached petitioner No.1, his parents and brothers (who are also petitioners in this petition) to perform actual marriage according to the prevalent Hindu rites and customs. The petitioners agreed to his request in presence of the witnesses and it was settled that marriage performance would take place after the Durga Puja. The father of the complainant again approached the petitioners on 12.9.1980 to fix up a definite date but they demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as dowry. When the father of the complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge sum the petitioners refused to solemnise the marriage. Some respectable persons intervened to save the prestige of the family of the complainant and ultimately the 4th November, 1980 was fixed as the date for performance of marriage with the consent of the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners deserted their house on 29.10. 1980 leaving the complainant in lurch and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 4 of the Act.