Dismissed

Anil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2024A482/16712/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of summons and proceedings under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held the offence is continuing until dowry is returned and thus limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. does not apply.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for lack of merit.

Anil Kumar and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130195

¶2

(Sl.No.17)

¶3

Court No. - 79

¶4

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16712 of 2024

¶5

Applicant :- Anil Kumar And 7 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Satish Solanki Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate holding brief of Sri Satish Solanki, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anish Kumar Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State.

¶8

The instant application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashing of summoning order dated 9.6.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.927 of 2023 (Rajkumari vs. Anil Kumar and others) under Section 6 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-Pachokhara, District-Firozabad, pending in the court of ACJM-I, Firozabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant complaint case has been filed by the opposite party No.2 under Section 406 IPC and Section 6 of D.P. Act, wherein the learned Magistrate has summoned the applicants herein only for the offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the marriage was solemnized in a community marriage function and no article of dowry were given. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the maximum punishment under Section 6 of the Act is two years and fine, therefore, the instant complaint case is hit by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as the same has been filed on 16.1.2023 and whereas the marriage was held on 18.4.2018 and three months have expired on 18th July, 2018, therefore, the limitation will start from 2018 and the instant complaint case is not sustainable in view of Section 468 of Cr.P.C., therefore, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA submits that the offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act is a continuing offence and unless articles of dowry or stridhan is returned to the complainant, the offence continues, therefore, the limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable in the instant case.

¶11

Hence, the instant application cannot be entertained.

¶12

Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case and from the plain reading of the complaint case, it has been alleged in the complaint that on 18.4.2018, the opposite party No.2 was married to the son of applicant No.2, namely, Babloo and in the marriage, the family of the opposite party No.2 has spent a huge amount of about Rs.6 lakhs, out of which three lakhs were given in cash and various articles such as Almirah, Refrigerator, Cooler, Chair-set, Jewellery, Cloths etc. and other house-hold articles were given as dowry in the marriage. However, the applicants have not returned the same and she was thrown out from the matrimonial house in June, 2019. Thereafter, on 10.12.2022, the husband of the opposite party No.2 has died. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial house and attended the last rites and applicants have thrown out the opposite party No.2 without giving her the aforesaid articles as noted herein above and despite the demand made by the opposite party No.2 through the registered notice through his advocate dated 5.1.2023.

¶13

The trial court vide order dated 9.6.2023 has summoned the applicants herein only for the offence under Section 6 of the D.P. Act. Section 6 of the D.P. Act reads as under:

¶14

" 6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.—

¶15

1. Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman—

¶16

(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within three months after the date of marriage; or

¶17

(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage, within three months after the date of its receipt; or

¶18

(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman.

¶19

2. If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor, or as required by sub-section (3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.

¶20

3. Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being:

¶21

Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall,—

¶22

(a) if she has no children, be transferred to her parents; or

¶23

(b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children.

¶24

3(A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the woman entitled thereto or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman or, as the case may be,her heirs, parents or children within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children.

¶25

4. Nothing contained in this section shall affect the provisions of section 3 or section 4."

¶26

In the provisions of Section 6 of the D.P. Act, the persons who receive the dowry or the articles given in the marriage hold such articles in trust for the benefit of the such woman in whose marriage such articles were given and they have been entrusted a duty to return such articles to the woman within three months from the date of marriage, when the articles were received after the marriage then within three months from the date of its receipt if the woman was minor at the time of marriage then within three months after she attained the age of 18 years. Therefore, the duty has been cast upon the receiver of the dowry articles and unless such articles of dowry are returned to the woman concerned, the offence is a continuing offence. Therefore, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable with regard to the aforesaid provision.

¶27

In view thereof, this Court does not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the applicant. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the applicants disputing that no dowry articles were given at the time of marriage is his defence, which can be proved by him during the trial.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .

¶29

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 LN Tripathi

¶30

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶31

Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Kamran and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S Kamal Enterprises and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Kaushal Kishore vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Aniruddha Garg and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 10 Others

Vinod Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh Giri vs State of U.P. and Another