Giving of dowry and traditional presents does not always raise a presumption that it’s custody is with in-laws #indianlaws

The Court clarified that giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In respect of ‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take into consideration the common practice that these articles are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house and used by her in her matrimonial house. Accordingly, it could not be held that dowry was given to groom’s parents and sisters who were living separately from the couple and they were duty bound to return the same to the deceased.

In the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to the in-laws, continuation of criminal proceeding against Appellants was held to be unjust and improper.

The court further observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised in rare cases. When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is to determine as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence. The Court must take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

The core issue before the Apex Court in the present case was, as to what is essentially required to be proved in proceedings under Section 6 of the Dowry Protection Act, 1961. The AP High Court vide its impugned finding declined to quash the proceedings against Appellants under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Appellants (Husband, his parents and his sisters) were facing a case registered under Sections 304B, 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A private complaint was also filed by father of the deceased wife against the appellants under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that he had paid dowry amount and other articles which were presented as dowry to the Appellants on their demand and the same were not returned.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged in private complaint against which a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was preferred for quashing of the complaint contending that the complaint did not disclose an offence and that there was already an FIR registered against them. High Court vide its impugned order dismissed the petition holding that the offences alleged in the case emanating from the FIR and the subsequent private complaint are not one and the same as the previous case was registered under Sections 304B and 498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, whereas the subsequent case was registered under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act which is independent of the previous case.

Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act lays down that where the dowry is received by any person other than the bride, that person has to transfer the same to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given and if he fails to do so within three months from the date of the marriage, he shall be punished for violation of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

It was observed that if the dowry amount or articles of married woman was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person who is dominion over the same, as per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section. The section further lays down that even after his conviction he must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order.

The court then further observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised in rare cases. When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is to determine as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence. The Court must take into consideration any special feature which appears in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue.

In the instant case, as per the facts thereof, there were no specific allegations against the Appellants other than the husband to the effect that the dowry articles were entrusted to them and that they have not returned the dowry amount and the articles to the deceased. Equally, there were no allegations that those dowry articles were kept with and used by parents and sisters of the husband, who were also separately living away from the couple.

In respect of ‘stridhana articles’ given to the bride, one has to take into consideration the common practice that these articles are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in her matrimonial house. Accordingly, it could not be held that dowry was given to groom’s parents and sisters who were living separately from the couple and they were duty bound to return the same to the deceased.

Court further clarified that even though the criminal proceeding under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to continuation of criminal proceeding against Appellants was held to be unjust and improper and accordingly same was held as liable to be quashed.

[Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh]

(SC, 19.01.2016)

Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016