# Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 379
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-13
- **Case number:** U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 8523 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Saroj Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-charitra-tiwari-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47107
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 -
Section 3 - penalty for giving or taking
dowry - giving or abetting to give dowry is
a punishable offence , Section 4 - mere
demand of 'dowry' is sufficient to bring
home the offence to an accused - Any
"demand" of money, property or valuable
security made from the bride or her
parents
or
other
relatives
by
the
bridegroom
or
his
parents
or
other
relatives or vice-versa would fall within
the mischief of 'dowry' under the Act
where such demand is not properly
referable to any legally recognised claim
and
is
consideration
of
marriage
-
Cognizance is taken of cases and not of
persons.(Para -10,14 )

F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2
(complainant) against petitioners - allegation -
marriage of complainant's daughter to be
solemnized with (petitioner no. 3) - petitioners
demanded dowry in different forms - kept
pending solemnization of marriage - (petitioner
no. 3) and his father (petitioner no. 1) went
to
complainant's
house
and
demanded
additional
dowry
-
investigation
made
-
submitted charge sheet - Court finding sufficient
ground took cognizance against petitioners -
aggrieved with order of taking cognizance and
summoning petitioners - petition filed.

HELD:-Demand of dowry even before the
solemnization of marriage and even if marriage
has not taken place will be an offence . No
difference whether marriage was solemnized or
not
to
attract
the
provisions
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act . Demand of dowry even at the
negotiation stage of marriage will constitute
offence. While taking cognizance of the offence,
Magistrate or Court concerned is not obliged to
give detailed reasons for its satisfaction. No
valid ground for interference in the matter to
quash the charge sheet as well as summoning
order. (Para - 14)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
379
----------
(2021)07ILR A379
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 Cr.P.C. No. 8523 of 2017

Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Rajendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advocate, Mohd. Naeem, Puttu Lal
Mishra

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of criminal
procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power - The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 -
Section 3 - penalty for giving or taking
dowry - giving or abetting to give dowry is
a punishable offence , Section 4 - mere
demand of 'dowry' is sufficient to bring
home the offence to an accused - Any
"demand" of money, property or valuable
security made from the bride or her
parents
or
other
relatives
by
the
bridegroom
or
his
parents
or
other
relatives or vice-versa would fall within
the mischief of 'dowry' under the Act
where such demand is not properly
referable to any legally recognised claim
and
is
consideration
of
marriage
-
Cognizance is taken of cases and not of
persons.(Para -10,14 )

F.I.R. lodged by opposite party no. 2
(complainant) against petitioners - allegation -
marriage of complainant's daughter to be
solemnized with (petitioner no. 3) - petitioners
demanded dowry in different forms - kept
pending solemnization of marriage - (petitioner
no. 3) and his father (petitioner no. 1) went
to
complainant's
house
and
demanded
additional
dowry
-
investigation
made
-
submitted charge sheet - Court finding sufficient
ground took cognizance against petitioners -
aggrieved with order of taking cognizance and
summoning petitioners - petition filed.

HELD:-Demand of dowry even before the
solemnization of marriage and even if marriage
has not taken place will be an offence . No
difference whether marriage was solemnized or
not
to
attract
the
provisions
of
Dowry
Prohibition Act . Demand of dowry even at the
negotiation stage of marriage will constitute
offence. While taking cognizance of the offence,
Magistrate or Court concerned is not obliged to
give detailed reasons for its satisfaction. No
valid ground for interference in the matter to
quash the charge sheet as well as summoning
order. (Para - 14)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Pooja Saxena Vs St. & anr., 2010 (4) JCC
2780

2. S. Gopal Reddy Vs St. of A..P., (1996) 4 SCC

3. L.V. Jadhav Vs Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar
& ors., 1983 AIR 1219

4. Bhushan Kumar Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2012)
5 SCC 424

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. On account of prevailing Covid-19
Pandemic, the case was heard through
video conferencing.

2. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Anurag Singh Chauhan, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State-respondent and perused the
record.
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. This petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners to
quash the impugned charge sheet no. 27 of
2017 dated 25.03.2017 as well as the
summoning order dated 19.05.2017 passed
by
the
Additional
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 14, Pratapgarh in
Case No. 160 of 2017.

4. The charge sheet as well as
summoning order have been challenged
mainly on the ground that learned Court
below failed to apply its legal mind on the
evidence collected by the Investigating
Officer as the same was not sufficient for
taking cognizance and summoning the
petitioners. According to Section 3 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"), taking or giving of
dowry both are punishable offences, then
under what circumstances the Investigating
Officer did not register a case against the
complainant, who alleged that he gave
dowry in the form of "Cash" to the
petitioners.

5. In this matter, the first information
report was lodged by the complainantopposite party no. 2-Krishna Prasad Mishra
against
the
petitioners
alleging
that
marriage of the complainant's daughter was
settled to be solemnized with Vipin
Chandra
Tiwari
(petitioner
no.
3).
Thereafter,
the
petitioners
started
demanding dowry in different forms for
different
reasons
and
kept
pending
solemnization of marriage. After repeated
requests the date of marriage was fixed and
the necessary arrangements as booking of
Marriage Hall, arrangements of catering
etc. were made. Thereafter on 16.06.2016,
Vipin Chandra Tiwari (petitioner no. 3) and
his father (petitioner no. 1) went to
complainant's
house
and
demanded
additional dowry and threatened that if the
money is not given, they will not marry the
daughter of the complainant. Facing such
difficult situation, the complainant gave
additional three lacs rupees to Vipin
Chandra Tiwari (petitioner no. 3) but they
again
started
demanding
more.
The
complainant was unable to pay more and he
realized that the petitioners have taken the
money on the pretext of marriage and they
did not want to marry his daughter.

6. Upon a complaint so moved by the
complainant, an F.I.R. was registered,
investigation
made
and
Investigating
Officer submitted charge sheet before the
Court
concerned.
The
Court
finding
sufficient ground took cognizance against
the petitioners. Being aggrieved with the
order of taking cognizance and summoning
the petitioners, this petition has been filed
before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
argued mainly on two counts. Firstly,
according to Section 3 of the Act, the
giving of dowry is also a punishable
offence, then why a case was not registered
against the complainant. Secondly, the
marriage was not solemnized so the offence
could not be said to have been committed.

8. Learned A.G.A. while opposing the
above submissions has submitted that the
Dowry Prohibition Act is a legislation to
protect the women and their family from
the menace of demand of dowry, therefore
to punish the complainant will cause
injustice to the complainant and will be
against the intention of legislature. Learned
A.G.A. further submitted that under the
definition of dowry, any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be
given before or after marriage comes under
the definition of dowry. He further
submitted that in the first information
7 All. Ram Charitra Tiwari & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
381
report cognizable offence was disclosed
and
after
investigation,
Investigating
Officer submitted charge sheet against the
petitioners. Thereafter, learned Court below
after
applying
its
legal
mind
took
cognizance of the offence and passed the
summoning order, which is perfectly legal,
hence, this petition lacks any merit.

9. Considered the rival submissions and
perused the material available on record.

10. As far as the first argument put forth
by the learned counsel for the petitioners is
concerned, it has no force in the light of the
observation made by Delhi High Court in the
case of Pooja Saxena Versus State &
Another, 2010 (4) JCC 2780. The extract of
relevant paragraph is quoted herein below:-

"No doubt, as per Section 3 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, giving or abetting to
give dowry is a punishable offence, but the
petitioner does have protection of Section
7(3) of the Act. Section 7(3) provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in any
law for the time being in force, a statement
made by the person aggrieved by the offence
under the Act shall not subject him to
prosecution under this Act."

11. Against the aforesaid order, a
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s) 13391340/2011 (Sameer Saxena Versus State of
NCT of Delhi & Another) was filed by the
petitioners before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
which was dismissed vide order dated
07.03.2011.

12. As far as second argument is
concerned, that too is not sustainable as
Section 4 read with Sub-section (2) of the
Act covers the demand of dowry even at
the negotiation stage as a consideration
in a proposed marriage which has not taken
place. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.
Gopal Reddy Versus State of Andhra
Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC, in this regard has
held as follows:-

"The definition of the term
'dowry' under Section 2 of the Act shows
that any property or valuable security
given or "agreed to be given" either
directly or indirectly by one party to the
marriage to the other party to the marriage
"at or before or after the marriage" as a
"consideration for the marriage of the said
parties" would become 'dowry' punishable
under the Act. Property or valuable
security so as to constitute 'dowry' within
the meaning of the Act must therefore be
given or demanded "as consideration for
the marriage.

The definition of the expression
'dowry' contained in Section 2 of the Act
cannot be confined merely to the 'demand'
of money, property or valuable security
'made at or after the performance of
marriage' as is urged by Mr. Rao. The
legislature has in its wisdom while
providing for the definition of 'dowry'
emphasised that any money, property or
valuable security given, as a consideration
for marriage, 'before, at or after the
marriage would be covered by the
expression 'dowry' and this definition as
contained in Section 2 has to be read
wherever the expression 'dowry' occurs in
the Act. Meaning of the expression 'dowry'
as commonly used and understood is
different than the peculiar definition
thereof under the Act. Under Section 4 of
the Act, mere demand of 'dowry' is
sufficient to bring home the offence to an
accused. Thus, any "demand" of money,
property or valuable security made from
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the bride or her parents or other relatives
by the bridegroom or his parents or other
relatives or vice-versa would fall within the
mischief of 'dowry' under the Act where
such demand is not properly referable to
any legally recognised claim and is
consideration of marriage. Marriage in this
context would include a proposed marriage
also more particularly where the nonfulfilment of the "demand of dowry" leads
to the ugly consequence of the marriage not
taking place at all. The expression 'dowry'
under the Act must be interpreted in the
sense which the Statute wishes to attribute
to it. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel
referred to various dictionaries for the
meaning
of
'dowry',
'bride'
and
'bridegroom' and on the basis of those
meanings submitted that 'dowry' must be
construed only as such property, goods or
valuable security which is given to a
husband by and on behalf of the wife at
marriage and any demand made prior to
marriage would not amount to dowry. We
cannot agree. Where definition has been
given in a statute itself, it is neither proper
nor desirable to look to the dictionaries etc.
to find out the meaning of the expression.
The definition given in the statute is the
determinative- factor. The Act is a piece of
social legislation which aims to check the
growing menace of the social evil of dowry
and it makes punishable not only the actual
receiving of dowry but also the very
demand of dowry made before or at the
time or after the marriage where such
demand is referable to the consideration of
marriage. Dowry as a quid pro for
marriage is prohibited and not the giving of
traditional presents to the bride or the
bride groom by friends and relatives. Thus,
voluntary presents given at or before or
after the marriage to the bride or the
bridegroom, as the case may be, of a
traditional nature, which are given not as a
consideration for marriage but out of love,
affection or regard, would not fall within
the mischief of the expression 'dowry' made
punishable under the Act. "

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of L.V. Jadhav Versus Shankarrao
Abasaheb Pawar and Others, 1983 AIR
1219, has held as under:-

"We are of the opinion that
having regard to the object of the Act a
liberal construction has to be given to the
word "dowry" used in s. 4 of the Act to
mean that any property or valuable
security which if consented to be given on
the demand being made would become
dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act.
We are also of the opinion that the object of
s. 4 of the Act is to discourage the very
demand for property or valuable security
as consideration for a marriage between
the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the
demand for 'giving' property or valuable
security which demand, if satisfied, would
constitute an offence under s. 3 read with s.
2 of the Act. There is no warrant for taking
the view that the initial demand for giving
of property or valuable security would not
constitute an offence and that an offence
would take place only when the demand
was made again after the party on whom
the demand was made agreed to comply
with it."

14. Hence, it is clear that demand of
dowry even before the solemnization of
marriage and even if marriage has not taken
place will be an offence. It makes no
difference
whether
marriage
was
solemnized or not to attract the provisions
of Dowry Prohibition Act. Demand of
dowry even at the negotiation stage of
marriage will constitute offence. On the
basis of FIR, matter was investigated and
7 All. Tej Singh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
383
charge sheet was filed. Thereafter, the
learned Court below after applying its legal
mind took cognizance of the offence. While
taking
cognizance
of
the
offence,
Magistrate or Court concerned is not
obliged to give detailed reasons for its
satisfaction. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Bhushan Kumar Versus State (NCT of
Delhi), (2012) 5 SCC 424, in this regard
has held as under:-

11.
In
Chief
Enforcement
Officer Vrs. Videocon International Ltd.
(SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression
"cognizance" was explained by this
Court "as it merely means 'become
aware of' and when used with reference
to a court or a Judge, it connotes 'to
take notice of judicially'. It indicates the
point when a court or a Magistrate takes
judicial notice of an offence with a view
to initiating proceedings in respect of
such
offence
said
to
have
been
committed by someone. It is entirely a
different
thing
from
initiation
of
proceedings; rather it is the condition
precedent
to
the
initiation
of
proceedings by the Magistrate or the
Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and
not of persons. Under Section 190 of the
Code, it is the application of judicial
mind to the averments in the complaint
that constitutes cognizance. At this
stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding and not whether there is
sufficient
ground
for
conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for
supporting
the
conviction
can
be
determined only at the trial and not at
the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient
ground
for
proceeding
then
the
Magistrate is empowered for issuance of
process under Section 204 of the Code."

15. In the light of the above
discussions, there remains no valid ground
for interference in the matter to quash the
charge sheet as well as summoning order.

16. This petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
deserves
dismissal
and
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------

(2021)07ILR A383
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 10216 of 2021

Tej Singh Verma & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Rabindra Bahadur Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power , Section 2(d) - complaint , Section
155 - Information as to non - cognizable
cases and investigation of such cases -
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323 &
392 - charge sheet submitted by police in
non-cognizable offence after investigation
made in pursuance of Magistrate order
stands at par with charge sheet submitted
by
police
in
cognizable
offence
-
Explanation to Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. is
not applicable where charge sheet has
been
submitted
by
police
in
noncognizable
offence
after
investigation
made in pursuance of order passed by
Magistrate.(Para -12 )