JUDGMENT Rajeshwar Singh 1. The wife filed a complaint in the court of the Magistrate against the husband. The, husband through this application under Sec. 482 CrPC prays for the complaint being quashed. 2. The complaint in short is that the husband after marriage made a demand for dowary. The wife's parents could not fulfil it. The wife was treated cruelly. The dowry that was given in the marriage was not returned to wife, so she filed this complaint praying that the husband be punished under Section 498-A of the IPC for being cruel to the wife, for demanding dowry in contravention of the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and he be directed to transfer all the dowry given to the husband in kind and cash at the time of marriage. It was argued that there is limitation of one year and this complaint cannot proceed as being time barred, demand for money made after the marriage will not constitute demand for dowry as it is not consideration for marriage and the wife cannot claim back the dowry given at the time of marriage till divorce is effected. For supporting these arguments, the case of Inder Sain v. The State, 1981 Criminal Law Journal 1116 decided by a single Judge of Delhi High Court, was relied upon. 3. The aforesaid case of Inder Sain is of no assistance because since then Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 has been amended by Act 63 of 1984 which came in force on 2-10-85 and by Act 43 of 1986 which came in force on 19-11-86. Formerly dowry was defined as property given as consideration for the marriage. But these words "as consideration for the marriage" which were relied upon in the aforesaid ruling, have been omitted and at their place the words "in connection with the marriage" have been substituted. The limitation of one year that was provided in Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, referred to in the ruling, has also been deleted. Now there is no limitation in Sec. 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 7 (2) provides that Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to limitation, will not apply to the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Now there is no limitation in Sec. 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec. 7 (2) provides that Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which relates to limitation, will not apply to the offences punishable under the Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Now dowry means any property given or agreed to be given by the parents of a party to the marriage at marriage or before marriage or at any time after marriage in connection with the marriage. It has been said in the complaint that the husband has demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the wife's father and on not being given he became angry, tortured the wife and threatened to go for another marriage. So prima facie it appears that the amount was being demanded in connection with the marriage and it was a demand for dowry even though it was demanded after marriage. Such a demand has been made punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The argument that the wife cannot claim back the amount given as dowry from the husband till dissolution of marriage, seems to have no force, when Sec. 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act says that all the dowry given must be transferred to the wife within three months and on failure to do so the husband can be punished and the court can direct that the dowry be transferred to the woman. This section does not provide that it is possible only on dissolution of marriage. Moreover, in the case of Pratibha Rani, (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370 it was said that it was Stridhan and its misappropriation amounts to an offence. 5. Paragraph 17 of the complaint runs as under :- "That on the night of 15-11-1985 the opposite party reached the residence of complainant's father at Lucknow and started shouting and abusing saying that he would not take the complainant away to Delhi, if the parents of the complainant are not ready to pay the demands of Rs. 50,000/-. On the request of the brother and father of the complainant and showing their inability to pay such a huge amount atonce, he became angry and threatened to torture and to go for another marriage and that they would suffer for that. The opposite party had stayed for two days to insist his demand. 50,000/-. On the request of the brother and father of the complainant and showing their inability to pay such a huge amount atonce, he became angry and threatened to torture and to go for another marriage and that they would suffer for that. The opposite party had stayed for two days to insist his demand. The complainant was not prepared herself to live at Delhi at her in laws residence in absence of fulfilment of dowry demands by opposite party", 6. Thus it is clear that the allegation is that the demand for dowry was made at Lucknow. It was for not giving dowry that the woman was treated, cruelly and the dowry given earlier was not transferred to the wife. So cruel treatment, demand for dowry, dowry being not transferred to the wife and on failure to do so threat to marry again, appears a series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. Hence under Section 220 (1) CrPC it is expected that they should be tried together at one trial and separate trials for each of the offences would not be necessary. If they can be tried at one trial then under Sec. J84 CrPC the court at Lucknow where demand for dowary was made, will have jurisdiction to try all offences even if some of the offences were committed outside Lucknow. Hence the question of (lack) of jurisdiction is not likely to arise. The case of Pratibha Rani, referred to earlier is also an authority for the proposition that at present only allegations of the complaint are to be seen and the truth and falsehood is not to be determined. 7. The result is that the complaint prima facie shows commission of offences and prima facie there is no bar of limitation or jurisdiction. Hence, it cannot be quashed and it should be allowed to be tried. Of course, the Magistrate will be free to come to his own findings on the evidence that is adduced before him.