Judgment Krishna Ballabh Sinha, J. 1. This petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to quash criminal proceeding pending against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Dumka on the allegation of commission of an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 1961 (No. 28 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Indu Kumari Ghosh the opposite party (complainant) an unmarried girl and the petitioners are co-villagers resident of village Kakania P.S. Saraivahat in the district of Santhal Parganas. The petitioner No. 1 is also unmarried and other petitioners are his family members. The father of the complainant had employed petitioner No. 1 as a private tutor to teach her daughter. In course of his employment, petitioner No. 1 became very intimate with the opposite party (complainant) and they fell in love with each other. The petitioner No. 1 promised to marry the Complainant without dowry and this offer was accepted by the girl. Further prosecution case is that petitioner No. 1 induced the complainant and took her to a temple on the 14th February 1980 and put a garland in her neck and the latter also garlanded this petitioner. After exchange of garland the complainant was made to believe that she had become married wife of the petitioner No. 1 and he started sexual intercourse with her as a result of which she became pregnant. 3. When the fact of pregnancy became known to the family members of the parties the father of the girl approached petitioner No. 1, his parents and brothers (who are also petitioners in this petition) to perform actual marriage according to the prevalent Hindu rites and customs. The petitioners agreed to his request in presence of the witnesses and it was settled that marriage performance would take place after the Durga Puja. The father of the complainant again approached the petitioners on 12.9.1980 to fix up a definite date but they demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 as dowry. When the father of the complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge sum, the petitioners refused to solemnise the marriage. Some respectable persons intervened to save the prestige of the family of the complainant and ultimately the 4th November 1980 was fixed as the date for performance of marriage with the consent of the petitioners. 10,000.00 as dowry. When the father of the complainant expressed his inability to pay such huge sum, the petitioners refused to solemnise the marriage. Some respectable persons intervened to save the prestige of the family of the complainant and ultimately the 4th November 1980 was fixed as the date for performance of marriage with the consent of the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners deserted their house on 29.10.1980 leaving the complainant in lurch and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec. 4 of the Act. 4. The complainant moved the District Magistrate, Santhal parganas who sanctioned prosecution under the Act and thereafter a complaint petition was filed. The chief judicial magistrate Dumka examined the complainant on solemn affirmation on 29.7.1981 and took cognizance. He also held an enquiry under Sec.202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and thereafter ordered to issue processes against the petitioners and transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate where it is pending for trial. 5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged this order mainly on the ground that no offence is made out on the materials disclosed in the complaint petition. He has referred sections of the Act where the term "dowry" has been defined which is as follows: "Definition of dowry" In this Act "dowry" means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly- (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage: or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other persons to either party to the marriage or to any other person: at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties but does not include dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat) applies. Explanation--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments, clothes or other articles shall not be deemed to be Dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties. His contention is that there was no agreement by either party to give any property or valuable security as consideration for the marriage and in fact marriage had already been performed on 14,2.1980 and so there was no occasion of any such agreement thereafter. After going through Sec.2 of the Act I find that there is no substance in this argument. According to the provisions of the Act, the agreement for payment of property or valuable security is not necessarily to precede the performance of marriage. The definition itself says that this agreement to give property or valuable security by either party may be before or after the marriage as consideration for it. It has also been made clear by Explanation I of Sec.2 of the Act that presentations made at the time of marriage by either party in shape of cash, ornaments, clothes and other articles are not deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section unless they are made as consideration for the marriage it is relevant and useful to consider the provision of Sec. 4 of the Act, which runs as follows: 4. Penalty for demanding dowry. If any person after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly from the perents or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both Provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this section except with the previous sanction of the State Government or of such officer as the State Government may by general or special order specify in this behalf So demand for dowry made by either parties or from their parents and guardians has also been made punishable. According to the averments made in the complaint petition, when the question of fixing the actual date of marriage was under consideration before the parties demand for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-was made by the petitioners whether this allegation is correct or incorrect that is to be seen at the time of trial but at this stage the assertion made in the complaint petition cannot be rejected. 6. As mentioned above argument has also been advanced by the petitioners that marriage had already been performed on 14.2.1980 without any dowry. 10,000/-was made by the petitioners whether this allegation is correct or incorrect that is to be seen at the time of trial but at this stage the assertion made in the complaint petition cannot be rejected. 6. As mentioned above argument has also been advanced by the petitioners that marriage had already been performed on 14.2.1980 without any dowry. From the complaint petition it appears that the opposite party (complainant) was induced by petitioner No. 1 to marry in a temple where both of them exchanged garland and the former was persuaded to believe that she had become the married wife of petitioner No. 1. It was under such inducement that the opposite party (complainant) is said to have allowed petitioner No. 1 to have sexual intercourse with her. So submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is not supported by the contents of this petition that, in fact, the marriage was performed. In the complaint petition itself it has been mentioned that after the opposite party (complainant) had become pregnant, her father had approached the petitioner No. 1 and his family members to perform the marriage according to Hindu rites and customs which was not acceptable to them. After giving my anxious consideration to the fact and circumstances of this case, I do not find myself in agreement with the learned Counsel for the petitioners that no prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners. 7. That next point urged on behalf of the petitioners is that there is no valid sanction for prosecution. The sanction, accorded by the District Magistrate, Santhal parganas is available on the record. Without expressing any opinion at this stage I find that the sanctioning authority had applied its mind to the fact of this case. Sanction is a mixed question of law and fact and it can be raised at any stage of the case and so I do not want to dwell upon this point at length any further as a definite finding may cause prejudice to one party or the other. However, this much is certain that a sanction order is there on the record and prima facie the same does not seem to suffer from any infirmity. 8. It has also been urged that the complaint petition was filed after long delay without giving any reasonable explanation. However, this much is certain that a sanction order is there on the record and prima facie the same does not seem to suffer from any infirmity. 8. It has also been urged that the complaint petition was filed after long delay without giving any reasonable explanation. A further submission has been made that a case under Sec. 493 of the Indian Penal Code is pending against petitioner No. 1 in which there is some talk of demand of dowry and a charge can be framed under this Act in that case itself. These are the points which are not very much relevant for disposal of this petition and so I do not propose to deal with them. 9. In the result, I find no merit in this application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.