PURSHOTTAM DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Order dated 21.12.1998 passed in C/1 Case No. 586/1996, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has been pleased to Order for framing charge against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that complainant -opposite party filed a case to the effect that he was in search of a suitable bridegroom for his eldest daughter Kiran Pandey then he got information that petitioner Purshottan Dubey, is also interested to perform marriage of his son and there was a negotiation between both the sides and in course of negotiation the petitioner said to the complainant -opposite party that there would be no demand of dowry. Thereafter the opposite party was telephonically informed to come to the residence of the petitioner and he went there and he was asked to pay sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs to meet the expenses of Barati, transportation, etc. which opposite party No. 2 - complainant agreed to pay and paid. Thereafter considering the desire or inquisitiveness of son of the petitioner, who was to be married with Kiran Pandey, daughter of opposite party No. 2 - complainant, about Maruti car, but by that time Maruti car was not to be supplied by the concerned company then he had purchased a Maruti car in black but the complainant opposite party No. 2 was again informed that the accused petitioner does not require Maruti Car and in place of Maruti car a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs was demanded from the opposite party No. 2 - complainant. Then complainant -opposite party No. 2 sent a message to the petitioner No. 1 that he does not want to perform marriage of his daughter to the son of the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter he made a request for refund of Rs. 1.50 lacs, then on one pretext or other the amount was not refunded and then he filed the complaint case as aforesaid.

(3.) THE sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that no case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out because no sanction has been obtained by the opposite party No. 2 for filing this case nor sanction has been obtained prior to the date of taking cognizance and learned Court was not justified in taking cognizance. Thereafter the petitioners came before the High Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 2673/1998 (R), wherein the following Order was passed :