498a judgement in favour of husband-Each and Every Demand does not fall within the mischief of unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C.
 |
| 498a judgement in favour of husband> |
Patna High Court in its Recent Judgment quashed proceedings of complaint case u/s 498a against all the accused including the husband and his relatives on the ground that the demand alleged against them was for the construction of a house which was not a dowry demand or unlawful demand. Hence, the basic ingredient for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is missing in this case. Therefore, the Hon’ble court quashed the criminal prosecution of the petitioners on the amount to save abuse of the process of the Court.
Case Brief- 498a judgement in favour of husband
Petitioners are the husband and other relations of the wife. In both the
applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the order passed by the magistrate, in Complaint whereby the petitioners have been asked to face
trial for offences under Section 498A I.P.C. only.
According to the complaint petition, the complainant was married to the petitioner on 29.06.2012 in a Shiv Temple.
The parents of the
complainant had gifted to the petitioners as per their capacity but the family
members were not happy with the gift and they were demanding a dowry. The demand
was Rs. 10 lakhs for constructing a house.
The parents of the complainant paid 5 Lacs for that purpose and 5 Lakhs was utilized for the construction of a house but the petitioner was
still demanding the remaining 5 Lacs and for non-payment of a further 5 Lacs, there is an allegation of abuse and assault.
Arguments- 498a judgement in favour of husband
The contention is that each and every demand does not fall within the mischief of
unlawful demand as explained in Section 498A I.P.C. The demand alleged was not as a consideration
of marriage but rather for the fulfillment of some family requirement.
The Advocate for the complainant's wife submits that the prima facie ingredient of
the offence alleged is made out in the complaint and has been
supported by the witnesses at the time of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and
once the Magistrate applied its mind and asked the petitioners to face trial
this Court should not substitute its own views unless the view of the
Magistrate is a perverse one.
The probable defense of the accused cannot be
looked into at this stage.
Referred Judgments- 498a judgement in favour of husband
1. Sonu Gupta Vs. Dipak
Gupta reported in (2015) 3 SCC 424,
2. Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2019(2)PLJR (SC)323 and
3. Rakhi Mishra
Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2017(4)PLJR (SC)21.
Court Opinion-498a judgement in favour of husband
There is no dispute with the instance that at the stage of taking
cognizance, the Judge is required to see whether the offences alleged are prima
facie disclosed.
There is no dispute that the probable defense of the petitioner cannot be looked into at the stage of defence but rather that can be looked into at
the appropriate stage of the trial only.
The question is whether the
alleged demand was an unlawful demand. The same question was there before a
Division Bench of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in Saro Bano & Ors Vs.
The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2005 which was an appeal
against conviction, however, the nature of the demand alleged was of money for the construction of the house and the Hon’ble High Court held that the
demand was not a dowry demand as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
Further in Vipul Jaiswal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2013)3 PLJR (SC) 91,
money demanded from the family members of the wife was for the purchase of a computer
and setting up his own business.
The case was also an appeal against conviction and
the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the demand was not a dowry demand as
defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
In the case of Appasaheb & Anr. Vs. The state of Maharashtra reported in 2007, the demand for money was for meeting the urgent financial needs of the
family and for meeting urgent domestic expenses. The Hon’ble Apex Court held
that it was not a dowry demand.
Apparently, the demand alleged against the petitioners was for the construction of
a house which was not a dowry demand or unlawful demand. Hence, the basic
ingredient for offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is missing in this case.
Therefore, the criminal prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of
the process of the Court.
Conclusion- 498a judgement in favour of husband
From this article, it is clear that each and every demand cannot be termed as a dowry, it has to be as per the definition of Section 2 of the Dowry Probation Act.
Blogger Comment
Facebook Comment