The Allahabad High Court while allowing an application said that the demand of two lakh rupees from in-laws for business is not included in the category of dowry. Demand of money for business cannot be considered as demand of dowry.
A Single Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta passed this order while hearing an application under section 482 filed by Devdutta and 4 Others.
The application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the Charge-sheet dated 16.09.2018 as well as the entire proceedings in Case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S- Fajalganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
The facts of the case are that on 07.09.2017, the opposite party no 2 herein has lodged an F.I.R against eleven persons which includes her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brothers-in-law & sisters-in-laws (Jeth and Jethani), sisters-in-law (Nand), brothers-in-law (Nandoi).
The allegations are that the marriage of the opposite party no 2 was solemnized with the applicant no 1 on 26.04.2012 as per the Hindu rituals and customs with all pomp and show. It is stated that in the marriage the family members of the opposite party no 2 had spent a sum of about Rs 8,00,000/-, which included the jewellery and the articles, given in the marriage.
After the marriage all the accused persons arrayed in the F.I.R started torturing her for less dowry and they also demanded a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- for establishing a business and told her that unless she brings the aforesaid amount of Rs 2,00,000/- she will be tortured.
It is further alleged in the F.I.R that in the meantime she became pregnant. Thereupon, she was sent to her parental home by stating that come after six months after the child is born.
Thereafter, the husband of the opposite party no 2 took her to her paternal home and after reaching there he quarrelled with her parents for the aforesaid sum of Rs 2,00,000/- and during such quarrel he pushed away the opposite party no 2 due to which her pregnancy got terminated. Since then, no one came forward to take care of the opposite party no 2.
When repeatedly the opposite party no 2 called her husband and in-laws then her husband came in August, 2013 and took the opposite party no 2 back and he asked the parents of the opposite party no 2 to give Rs 50,000/, which was urgently required by him. Then, the mother of the opposite party no 2 took a loan of Rs 50,000/- and paid to the husband of the opposite party no2.
After reaching in-laws’ place the in-laws (arrayed as accused in the F.I.R) again started torturing her for the rest of the amount of Rs 1,50,000/-. In October, 2014 she again became pregnant and since the in-laws did not take care of her, she became very sick. Then, the in-laws again asked her to go back to her paternal place stating that since your parents have not given the amount of Rs1,50,000/- as demanded, therefore, nobody will take care of her.
Thereupon, the husband of the opposite party no 2 took her to her parental home, where she gave birth to a son, who was aged about three years at the time of lodging of the FIR.
After the child was born the husband again took her back to the in-laws’ place on 15.05.2015, as per the settlement and kept her till October, 2016. During this period again, they continue to demand Rs 1,50,000/- and used to torture her for the same and they used to call her mother saying that either give Rs 1,50,000/- or take their daughter back.
On 06.10.2015, the opposite party no 2 heard that all the in-laws were conspiring to kill her, which was protested by the opposite party no 2, thereupon, they sent the opposite party no 2 along with her child through the train to her parent’s home. Since then, no one came to take her back and due to the persuasion of relatives the husband of the opposite party no 2 was supposed to come for settlement in the month of November, 2016, however, he did not come and due to such attitude of the husband of the opposite party no 2 her mother suffered a brain hemorrhage and she died on 19.11.2016. Since then, nobody has taken any care of the opposite party no 2 as well as her son.
The aforesaid F.I.R was investigated and statement of the opposite party no 2 was recorded. In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, she has almost repeated the same averments made in the FIR.
However, in her further statements recorded on 07.09.2018, though initially she made the similar allegations, however, when the specific query was made by the Investigation Officer with regard to the fact whether all the eleven persons named in the F.I.R are residing in the same house, then, she thought over for sometime but did not reply satisfactorily. When again another question was asked that who actually used to abuse and beat her for demand of dowry, then, she replied, her husband- Devdutta, brothers-in-law, Vijay Gupta and Dwarkadhish Gupta and Sisters-in-law, Shushila and Sarita, used to beat and torture her.
When a specific query was made by the Investigation Officer whether the other persons were residing in the same house and were sharing the same kitchen or they were living separately, then, she specifically told that all the persons were living separately. However, only her husband used to torture her. On query with regard to the injuries sustained by her during such torture and harassment committed by her in-laws whether there was any medical certificate with regard to any injury suffered by her, she told that she did not have any medical certificate. With regard to the fact of termination of pregnancy due to a push made by her husband, she specifically replied that she did not have any proof thereof. However, she said that if something happens against the regular cycle of the menstrual period then she felt that pregnancy was terminated. However, she never suffered the termination of pregnancy. The typist has made some mistakes while typing.
During the investigation, statement of the applicant no 1, the husband as well as the other independent witnesses were recorded by the Investigation Officer, who states that all the daughters of Radhey Shyam are married and are living separately at different locations and the wife of Devdatta was a quarrelsome lady. It is further stated by one of the independent witnesses that the opposite party no 2 is an Advocate and used to treat Radhey Shyam Gupta and his sons to implicate them in false cases.
The Court observed that,
From the record it is reflected that the instant F.I.R was lodged by the opposite party no 2 against the eleven persons named in the F.I.R making general and vague allegations. The allegations of demand of Rs 2,00,000 for the business purpose by the applicant no1 will not come within the ambit of the demand of dowry.
Thus, from the observations made by the Apex Court, the Court is of the considered view that the demand of money as alleged in the instant F.I.R for carrying out a business by the applicant no1 from her in laws would not come within the ambit of dowry, therefore, the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C as well as Section 3/4 of the D.P Act would not attract in the case.
So far as the other allegations made by the opposite party no 2, are concerned the same are general, vague and inconsistent allegations on the basis of which the applicants cannot be permitted to be harassed.
The facts with regard to injury caused to the opposite party no 2 or any termination of pregnancy due to the injury caused has already been denied by the opposite party no 2 in her majid statement, recorded by the Investigation Officer during investigation.
In the totality of the circumstances, as discussed hereinabove, the Court is of the considered opinion that the instant case filed by the opposite party no 2 is nothing but a malicious prosecution on her part. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court such proceedings cannot be allowed to continue against the applicants herein, therefore, the same deserve to be quashed.
For the reasons aforesaid, the Court allowed the application and the entire proceedings of Case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, P.S- Fajalganj, District- Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, as well as the Charge-sheet dated 16.09.2018 are hereby quashed.