Nirmal Kaur vs Balbir Singh and ors.

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.

Nirmal Kaur filed a complaint under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act and under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against Balbir Singh and others on the allegations that her daughter Manjit Kaur married to Balbir Singh petitioner on 19121987 and at the time of marriage she was given dowry articles of the value of Rs. 60,000/. Balbir Singh and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry and Minda petitioner, mother of Balbir Singh accompanied by Manjit Kaur went to the parents of Manjit Kaur and demanded Rs. 20 000/ for sending Balbir Singh abroad. The complainant could not fulfil the demand of motherinlaw of Manjit Kaur and subsequently Manjit Kaur was murdered by her husband, Mindo and Sindo. Articles of dowry which were entrusted to the petitioners were retained by them and they refused to hand over the same to the complainant.

After recording preliminary evidence, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala found that a primafacie case under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibtion Act and under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code was made out against the petitioners and they were summoned to face trial for these offences vide order dated 1261990.

A revision petition was filed against the order of summoning by Balbir Singh and others which was accepted by Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and the complaint filed by Nirmal Kaur was dismissed as per order dated 72, 1991. Present revision has been filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge by Nirmal Kaur complainant.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order was not proper as mother of Manjit Kaur deceased was competent to file a complaint under the Dowry Prohibition Act and no sanction was required for filing the complaint. Regarding the offence under Section 406 of IPC it was contended that the offence was a recurring one and limitation started from the date when demand was made. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contended that mother of Manjit Kaur was not competent to file complaint and moreover the complaint could not proceed as no sanction under section 8A inserted by Punjab Amendment Act No. 26 of 1976 was obtained. Section 8A reads as follows :

"No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or such officer as the State Government may by special or general order appointed, in this behalf."

Sanction of the District Magistrate, is a condition precedent for the institution of a complaint in so far as the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 196 as amended by the State of Punjab is concerned. It was conceded by learned counsel for the petitioner that no sanction was obtained by the complainant. As a consequence the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences in so far as the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned. Similar view was taken in the case of Deepak Kumar and another v. The State of Punjab and another, 1989 (1) CLR 575.

So far as filing of the complaint by mother of the deceased is concerned, it was admitted that the deceased had left a child. The complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that she was to hold the dowry articles in trust for the child. In the case of Mangat Ram v. The State of Haryana, 1988 (2) Recent Criminal Reports 349 wherethe dowry articles were retained by the husband after the death of his wife, it was held that it did not amount to commission, of offence under Section 406 IPC and mother of the deceased girl could not claim the same. The complaint under Section 406 IPC was also liable to dismissal on the ground that it was filed after a period of more than three years of the entrustment of the dowry articles to the respondents and no allegations were made in the complaint as to when the alleged offence was committed. The marriage of Balbir Singh with Manjit Kaur was performed on 1921987 and the dowry articles were alleged to have been entrusted to the petitioners on that day while the complaint was filed on 761990. It was filed beyoned the period of limitation and there was no prayer for condonation of delay. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered all these aspects of the case and dismissed the complaint on sustainable grounds. The revision petition is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed