Mohammad Usman Warsi and Others vs Mohammad Farooq

Palok Basu, J.—This petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Mohammad Usman Warsi, Mst. Chandni Begum, Shahzad Husain, Mst. Kishwar Jahan, Ashraf Ahmad and Km. Sabiya Sultana with a prayer that a complaint filed by opposite party Mohammad Farooq, an Advocate in the district courts, Moradabad, u/s 120-B/500 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as also the process issued by the court of I Ind Addl. Munsif Magistrate 1st class, Moradabad, and all the proceedings in the criminal case numbered as 547 of 1989 be quashed.

The opposite party has filed a counter affidavit and made an application that the interim order be vacated. Consequently, this application was listed for orders. As prayed, this matter was heard on merits, because no rejoinder was proposed to be filed. Shri Haji Iqbal Ahmad, Advocate for the applicants and Sri. R.K. Khanna, learned Counsel for the opposite party Mohd. Farooq were heard in great detail.

A perusal of the complaint indicates the mind of the opposite party Mohd. Farooq that by this process he may get finalised the broken proposal of the marriage of the daughter of Mohd. Usman Warsi with him. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the complaint is not only frivolous and vexatious, but the allegations do not make out any offence.

Reliance was placed on the relevant paragraphs of the complaint, translated into English version, would read as follows:

Para (6) That on 26-11-1988 the accused Nos. 1 to 5 came to the house of the opposite party and on 27-11-1988 they settled the marriage of Km. Sabiya Sultana with the opposite party and by way of custom, they gave one gold ear ring, one pant piece, one cap, one shirt piece, one handkerchief about 5 kg. Laddu, 5 Kg. fruits and Rs. 151/- in cash.

Para (7) That on 28-11-1988 the opposite party wrote a letter to the accused applicant No. 1 in which he requested for performing the marriage at an early date and also wrote that this marriage should be performed without any dowry and expenditure and it should be a simple one.

Para (11) That in the meantime, there was a change in the intention of the accused (applicant) and they with a view to harass and humiliate the opposite party concocted amongst themselves the idea of demand of dowry. They wrote a registered letter in which they demanded the following articles from the opposite party to reach them before the festival of Idulfitra in case he wanted to marry Km. Sabiya. They stated that in case they failed to send the demanded articles, the opposite party should take it for granted that the marriage will not be performed and Km. Sabiya will be married to a person, who is financially better than the opposite party. This letter was received by the opposite party on 8-3-1989 of which a copy is attached.

List of the demanded Articles (i) 25 pair of clothes (ii) one gold necklace (iii) gold kangan and bangles (iv) Two pair of gold ring (v) One Gold Tika (vi) One Gold chain (vii) Two pair of ear (namely Kundan) (viii) Two pair of Pajeb (ix) One silver necklace (x) One silver ancklets (xi) One wrist watch (ladies).

Para (12) That the action of the accused, in furtherance of the common intention, demanding of the aforesaid dowry, and in case of failure the settlement of the marriage would come to an end, is punishable u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Para (13) That the breaking of the marriage-settlement after finalising it on the ground that the opposite party is not wealthy, amounts to defamation u/s 500 IPC because the opposite party''s reputation has been lowered in the estimation of others.

It may be noted that the other paragraphs of the complaint are not relevant for the purposes of making out offences, they relate to ancilliary facts. There is no denial of the fact that the parties are Muslims and, therefore, the Mehar amount could be settled between the parties. In what terms the parties may have settled the Mehar, is not known. The complaint is silent on this point. Suffice it to say, some presentations from the husband side to the wife side for finalising the marriage may itself not indicate any criminal intention punishable u/s 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, because the amount equivalent to it may very well be the ''Mehar'' amount. Since there is no allegation in the complaint as to what were the imputations and before whom its publication, if any, was made by the accused, no offence punishable u/s 500 IPC is made out. The complaint indicates prima facie that publication, if any, was made by Mohd. Farooq himself, by moving the applications to the S.S.P. etc. A letter written by applicants to the opposite party under closed envelope would not constitute publication of any defamatory matter even if it contains some. Consequently, the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence punishable under any law and there is enough force in the argument that it is frivolous. Therefore, it is a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing tee complaint and all further proceedings therein.

Consequently, this application succeeds and is allowed. The complaint annexure I giving rise to the criminal case No. 54 7 of 1989, pending in the court of I Ind Addl. Munsif Magistrate 1st Class, Moradabad and all proceedings therein, are quashed.