Sagar Mune & Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Heard. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the First Information Report bearing Crime No.203/2018, registered by the non-applicant No.1 on 18.6.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the applicants. It also further prays for quashing criminal proceeding bearing Regular Criminal Case No.1952/2025 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati.

As per the contents of the application filed by the applicants, on 29.3.2018 the marriage of daughter of non-applicant No.2, namely, Ashwini Bondre was settled with the non-applicant No.1 and the engagement ceremony was performed. Thereafter, in the month of May 2018 the said daughter of non-applicant No.2 frequently started calling him, sending messages to the applicant No.1 even in the late night hours. The applicant No.1 did not like such approach and tried to convince Ashwini but it was in vain. Ashwini used to say that the applicant No.1 is of very conservative mindset. Therefore, a meeting was called on 16.5.2018 in which said Ashwini behaved in a most arrogant away. Due to such behavior, the applicants thought over the matter and on 19.5.2018, the applicant No.1 decided not to go ahead with the marriage. This fact was conveyed to the non-applicant No.2 on the next day i.e. 20^th May, 2018 itself and on 24.5.2018, the applicant No.1 addressed a written communication to the non-applicant No.2 by registered post acknowledgment due which was served upon the said non-applicant No.1 on 1.6.2018.

On 14.6.2018, the nephew of non-applicant No.2 Shri Avinash Bondre, who is a retired Police Inspector threatened the applicant Nos.1 and 2 that if the marriage is not performed as decided, all the applicants would land in Police lock-up. On 18.6.2018, the non-applicant No.2/complainant filed a report with the non-applicant No.1 alleging that the applicants demanded a Swift Dzire Car from them which amounted demand of dowry. Therefore, the First Information Report was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Consequently, Regular Criminal Case was registered against the applicants. It is the said First Information Report and the Regular Criminal Case as stated above, which is challenged in the present application.

We have heard Mr. S.M. Nafde, learned counsel for the applicants, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1 and Ms. Aparna Kshirsagar, Advocate holding for Mr. Anil Dhawas, learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2.

Learned counsel for the applicants by taking us through various communications filed on record states that it was the applicant No.1, who on 24.5.2018 communicated to the non-applicant No.2 as also various Police Authorities regarding breaking of marriage and the threat by non-applicant No.2. He has filed postal receipts and the acknowledgments on record evidencing the said fact. He also submits that these communications are much prior to lodging of the First Information Report. He thereafter submits that even after lodging of the First Information Report, the non-applicant No.2 through some of his relatives tried to threaten the applicant No.1. Such fact was also intimated by him to the various Police Authorities vide communication dated 14.6.2018. He, therefore, submits that looking at the arrogant behavior of the daughter of the non-applicant No.2 the marriage was broken and as far as demand for dowry is concerned they never demanded dowry. He further submits that the First Information Report in question does not make out a case against the applicants.

Per contra, Mrs. Swati Kolhe, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant No.1/State submits that the applicants had demanded dowry and the statement of the non-applicant No.2 and his relatives and friends reflect committing of offence as contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned counsel for the non-applicant No.2 also supports the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No1 and states that only because the non-applicant No.2 could not fulfill demand of dowry made by the applicants, the marriage was broken. He, therefore, prays for rejection of the application in question.

We have carefully perused the charge-sheet which consists of material collected by the Investigating Agency. We have also perused various communications filed on record addressed by which are relevant read as under :

As can be seen from the meaningful reading of Section 3 (supra), it contemplates ‘giving or taking’ of dowry. However, in the present case there is neither giving or taking dowry as contemplated by Section 3. Therefore, in our view no offence is made out under Section 3 of the Act, as the necessary ingredients are not made out after perusal of charge-sheet in question.

Furthermore, as far as Section 4 is concerned, it contemplates penalty for demanding dowry. The word “demand” in Section 3 carries a wide, but a general connotation. If the material placed on record and more particularly written report lodged by the non-applicant No.2 which has led to lodging of First Information Report in question, it can be seen that said report mentions an incident of 16.5.2018. The said report states that the applicant No.1 expressed his wish to buy a Swift Dzire vehicle. The complaint further states that the applicant No.1 stated that he has a old Maruti Alto car which would fetch an amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs and he requires an amount of Rs.5/- lakhs. What is noteworthy to state that this was stated by the elder brother of the applicant. The non-applicant No.2 further states that he could not get what was sought to be conveyed by the applicant No.1 and his elder brother. This is the only allegation regarding the ‘demand’ as contemplated by Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In our view, this aspect cannot be considered as a ‘demand’ and would only be a wish of purchasing a Swift Dzire car of the applicant No.1. Even if the said aspect has to be interpreted in the context in which it is made. Furthermore, admittedly since the marriage was broken before it was performed, there was no question of any ‘giving or taking’ dowry as contemplated under Section 3. As already stated above, only a wish expressed by the applicant No.1 and his elder brother cannot be inferred to be a ‘demand’ as contemplated by Section 4. It was only because of the indecent behavior of the daughter of non-applicant No.2 that the marriage was broken. It is noteworthy to mention and as we have already stated above, the applicant No.1 has communicated to the various authorities regarding the threat perception which he conceived. All these communications are dated 24.5.2018. The original receipts and acknowledgments have been perused by us which were placed before us by the learned counsel for the applicants. All these communications are admittedly before lodging of the First Information Report. Thus, we have a reason to believe that the lodging of First Information Report is actuated by malice and is only a device to harass the applicants. Thus, the situation would squarely fall within the well laid down parameters by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 more particularly clauses (1) to (7) of paragraph 102 reads as under :

Thus, the continuance of the said proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of Court and would cause great harassment to the applicants. We, therefore, pass the following order :