Smt. Ram Rakhi and Another vs Subhash Chander Kohli

C.S. Tiwana, J.—Smt. Ram Rakhi and her son Mohan Lal have filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of an order dated January 18, 1980, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jullundur, summoning them in relation to offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Mohan Lal Petitioner No. 2 was married to Pawan Kumari on April 25, 1975. It was on behalf of Pawan Kumari that her brother Subhash Chander respondent filed a complaint under sections 3, 4 and 4B of the Dowry Prohibition Act on November 28, 1979, against the petitioners and two other accused persons who are Goverdhan Lal and Pushpa, respectively a brother and a sister of Mohan Lal. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 38,000/- had been agreed to be paid by Pawan Kumari and her parents by way of dowry. On March 19, 1979, both the petitioners were said to have brought Pawan Kumari alongwith her two daughters born after her marriage with Mohan Lal to Jullundur at her parental house. The petitioners were said to have told the parents of Pawan Kumari in the presence of some witnesses that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- out of the agreed amount should be immediately paid. In case of the non-payment of the amount, this threat was given that Pawan Kumari would not be taken back to Delhi where Mohan Lal and other members of his family had settled. From the complaint as filed, it also transpires that Pawan Kumari was previously married to Prem Sagar who died in a Motor vehicle accident. A sum of Rs. 38,000/- had been awarded to her as the compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jullundur, by an order dated May 9, 1974. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was recovered by Pawan Kunari in execution of the award after the marriage and for that reason Mohan Lal wanted an immediate payrrent of that amount In the petition filed before this Court it was pleaded that Mohan Lal filed a petition for divorce against his wife on September 26, 1979, and it was thereafter that the complaint alleging the commission of offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act was said to have been instituted on November 28, 1979, so as to gain some advantage in the divorce proceedings.

The trial Magistrate while passing an order for summoning of the petitioners as the accused did not pay any attention to the bar of limitation as laid down by the Dowry Prohibition (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1976. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 3, 4 and 4B except on a complaint made within one year from the date of offence by some person aggrieved by the offence It is further provided that where the person aggrieved is the wife the complaint may be made on her behalf by her brother among other relatives. Even though the respondent can be taken to have validly filed the complaint on behalf of his sister yet it has to be noticed that the complaint was not filed within one year of the commission of the offences. The offences u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act can be deemed to have been committed whenever any demand of dowry is made as consideration for the marriage. It is mentioned in the complaint that Pawan Kumari and her parents had agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 28,000/- before the marriage was settled. Thus any demand for dowry can be taken to have been made more than four years prior to the filing of the complaint. The magistrate could not thus summon the petitioners in relation to the offences u/s 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The amount which is alleged to have been demanded by the petitioners can also not be covered by the term ''dowry'' as defined by section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The amount of Rs. 38,000/- belonged to Pawan Kunari herself. She could have brought the same with her to her husband''s house or she could have gifted it to any of his other relatives. It was at all not an amount in relation to which the parents of Pawan Kumari could enter into any agreement for payment to Mohan Lal. It may be that Mohan Lal in the natural course of events expected that Pawan Kumari would bring the amount with herself whenever it was realised to his house. By no stretch of imagination the amount awarded as compensation can be taken to be an amount agreed to be paid by parents of Pawan Kumari as consideration for the marriage. In view of this position, learned counsel for the respondent primarily urged for the prosecution of the petitioners in relation to the commission of the offence u/s 44 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Such an offence would be committed if any party to the marriage after the marriage deprives the other party of the rights and privileges of the marriage or tortures or refuses to maintain the said other party for non-payment of dowry. Any person who assists such party in the commission of such offence is also liable to punishment Thus, according to the learned counsel, it was on March 1979, that the offence u/s 4B was committed and limitation for summoning the accused for that offence was still there when the complaint was filed. Without further discussing the matter it has to be pointed out that the Magistrate never summoned the accused person u/s 4B of the Dowry Prohibition Act and consequently it can be inferred that the complaint in respect of that offence had been dismissed.

Thus the order summoning the petitioners for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained on account of the expiry of the limitation and also for this reason that the dispute dos not relate to an amount which can be said to be covered by the definition of dowry. The said order is, therefore, quashed.