Manish Jain and Others vs District Dowry Prohibition Officer and Others

Giridhar Malaviya and N.S. Gupta, JJ.—We have heard Sri Janardan Sahai learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri N. K. Chaturvedi who is appearing on behalf of the caveat. This petition has been filed by Manish Jain, Umesh Kumar Jain and Smt. Tara Jain under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief to quash the complaint by Bhojdutt Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-1) to the petition as also the notice dated 20.5.1998 (Annexure-2) sent by District Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad on the said complaint. Sri Janardan Sahai, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has contended before this Court that the Dowry Prohibition Officer has no jurisdiction either to entertain the said complaint or to summon the Petitioners. His contention is that since the marriage of the parties has taken place at Patna and since a perusal of the complaint also indicates that demand for dowry which the Petitioners do not admit was made at Patna, hence the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad has no jurisdiction to summon the Petitioners.

We have gone through the complaint as also the other annexures which have been filed along with this petition. In a nutshell, it is not disputed that the engagement of Manjoosha daughter of the complainant Bhojdutt was performed with Manish Jain S/o Sri Umesh Kumar Jain at Firozabad. Thereafter the marriage between two was performed at Patna. The complaint says that at the time of marriage itself, the party of bridegroom and other relatives were unhappy with the dowry ; hence even before the Vidai ceremony, they had expressed their anguish and unhappiness of the dowry. It is further mentioned that at the time of Vidai, additional demand was made for a diamond set and a Ceilo car and it was made clear that till these things were not given, they would not take Manjoosha with them in Vidai. The complaint further says that under the compelling circumstances although he knew that he would not be able to arrange a diamond set and a Ceilo car, yet to facilitate Vidai of his daughter, he agreed to give these items later. Thereafter the in-laws of Manjoosha started torturing her. This fact was conveyed to the complainant at Firozabad by his daughter on telephone and when she visited Firozabad after her marriage. Ultimately on the first wedding anniversary of Manjoosha, complainant''s son Hemendra, his son''s wife Smt. Savita and Anand went to Patna. They were surprised to find Manjoosha seriously ill. It was then that Manjoosha informed her brother, etc. about the neglect in her treatment as also about the abortion which was conducted by her in-laws and for which even the bill of Rs. 1,121 was handed over by Manish Jain to Hemedra demanding its money, which Hemendra paid immediately. On being forced by Manish and his parents. Hemendra brought back Manjoosha to Firozabad in a set of clothes which she was wearing and at that time also Manish Jain, Umesh Jain and Smt. Tara Jain made it clear that unless a diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, Manjoosha would have to remain at her father''s place and if she was sent back to Patna, then Manjoosha would be killed. The complaint further mentions that when the treatment of Manjoosha was got done at Agra by a specialist Lady Doctor it was found that she was not properly treated and any delay might have caused her death. The complaint further says that due to such behaviour to his daughter Manjoosha, she had become a victim of mental torture and remained always under stress. The complaint further mentions that despite all these episodes, the complainant talked to his daughter''s in-laws on telephone and requested to them to keep his daughter with them but they categorically stated that unless the diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, the complainant''s daughter would have to remain at the residence of the complainant. Ultimately the complaint mentions that since all efforts of compromise failed, hence the complainant sent a notice to the in-laws of her daughter. Under the circumstances, a request was made in the complaint that the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad, may have the necessary legal action initiated against the aforesaid person and have them punished in accordance with law.

To examine whether the Dowry Prohibition Officer has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not, we consider it proper to go through the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 1 gives a title of the Act and shows its application to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This Act come into force on 20.6.1961 on its publication in the Gazette of India. Section 2 defines ''Dowry'' and reads as follows:

In this Act, "dowry" means any property of valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly--

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage ; or

(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before (or any time after the marriage) (in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include) dower of mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Sections 3 and 4 provide the penalty for giving and demanding dowry and taking dowry. Section 4 imposes ban on advertisement for dowry. Section 5 provides that any agreement for giving and taking dowry shall be void. Section 6 provides dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. Section 7 prescribes taking of cognizance of offence. Section 8 prescribes that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, applies to offence under this Act as if they were cognizable offences etc. and that every offence shall be non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. Section 8A prescribed burden of proof in certain cases. Section 8B(1) provides that State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas in respect of which they shall exercise their jurisdiction and powers under this Act. Section 8B(2) thereafter reads as follows:

(2) Every Dowry Prohibition Officer shall exercise and perform the following powers and functions, namely:

(a) to see that the provisions of this Act are complied with ;

(b) to prevent, as far as possible, the taking or abetting the taking of or the demanding of, dowry ;

(c) to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act ; and (d) to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government, or as may be specified in the rules made under this Act.

(3) The State Government may, by notification the Official Gazette, confer such powers of a police officer as may be specified in the notification on the Dowry Prohibition Officer who shall exercise such powers subject to such limitations and conditions as may be specified by rules made under this Act.

(4) The State Government may, for the purpose of advising and assisting the Dowry Prohibition Officers in the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, appoint an advisory board consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) from the area is respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Officer exercises jurisdiction under Sub-section (1).

Section 9 gives powers to the Central Government to make rules and Section 10 gives power the State Government to make rules.

As is clear by the reply dated 22.5.1998 of Sri Shushil Kumar Singh given by him on behalf of the Petitioners to Sri N. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate who had served notice on Petitioners on behalf of Smt. Manjoosha, the fact of (ring engagement) ceremony taking place at Firozabad on 26.8.1996 followed by the presentation of a set of gold ornaments, etc. to the bride is not denied by the Petitioners. The complaint also mentions the fact that when the complainant rang up the Petitioners at Patna requesting that Manjoosha be accepted back, even then it was conveyed to the complainant at telephone at Firozabad that Manjoosha will be acceptable only if diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them. It is relevant to note that in the definition of "Dowry" under this Act, it has been made clear that any property given by one party to the other party at or before the marriage constitutes Dowry. Accordingly, items exchanged at the time of engagement ceremony at Firozabad would amount to dowry within the meaning of this Act.

Section 8B(2)(a)(b) requires the Dowry Prohibition Officer to see the provision of Act are complied and to prevent taking of or the demanding of, dowry. Sub-clause (c) says that Dowry Prohibition Officer shall collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act.

A perusal of this Sub-clause (c) of Section 8B makes it clear that if there is any complaint of dowry being demanding, the Dowry Prohibition Officer has to collect evidence in relation thereto.

Section 7 makes it clear that a Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act only either on its own knowledge or on a police report of the facts, or on a complaint by a person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person. In this case, the complaint has been made to the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad, alleging demand of dowry by the Petitioners.

Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the Dowry Prohibition Officer, who under the Act is bound to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of a person committing such an offence, could not have issued notice to the Petitioners on a complaint received by him. The complainant as indicated earlier simply made a prayer that Dowry Prohibition Officer should get the proceeding initiated to punish the persons who had demanded dowry. Accordingly, it is clear that the action of the Dowry Prohibition Officer to collect the necessary evidence and if satisfied to launch prosecution against the Petitioners at the appropriate place is warranted by law. Whether the prosecution would be launched at Patna or at some other place will be the question to be considered as and when the prosecution is initiated. At this stage, it must be said that the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad, has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and that he could summon the Petitioners on the complaint which has been presented to him.

Consequently the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission.