V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings in CC. No. 87/2001 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate: Cum: Mahila Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are the accused against whom a charge sheet is filed for the offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code for subjecting Smt. D. Manisha Reddy to cruelty who is the wife of the 1st petitioner and daughter in law of the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief of the prosecution are as follows: - On 17/10/2000 at 11-10 hrs Banjara Hills P. S. Hyderabad City received a telephone message from Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills, that one patient by name Smt. D. Manisha Reddy, D/o. D. K. Samarasimha Reddy R/o. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, has been admitted in the hospital in an unconscious state alleged to have swallowed 30 tablets of 0. 5 mg Aparazorom "restyle" at her residence at 6-00 p. m. and on that information the Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the Apollo Hospital and found Manisha Reddy but he could not record her statement as she was in an unconscious state and in deep sleep. The Duty Medical Officer also endorsed on the Medico Legal Case registered that "patient is in deep sleep and drowsy because of drug effect. Not in a position to give statement. " Accordingly, he returned to the Police Station accompanied by Sri D. K. Samarasimha Reddy (father of D. K. Manisha Reddy), who submitted a written complaint stating that on 07/10/2000 when he was sitting in the house of one Mr. Jana Reddy along with Mr. Raguma Reddy discussing about the future of his youngest daughter of Smt. Manisha Reddy as she has been subjected to lot of mental harassment by her husband - D. Surender Reddy (1st petitioner) her father-in-law (D. Damodar Reddy) and Smt. D. Radamma (mother-in-law), his co-brother s daughter Deepthi came in hurry and said that Manisha had gone into unconscious state and were suspecting some mischief. Immediately he rushed home and shifted his daughter to Apollo Hospital in an unconscious condition. The step taken by his daughter was due to harassment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. Immediately he rushed home and shifted his daughter to Apollo Hospital in an unconscious condition. The step taken by his daughter was due to harassment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. On the complaint given by the father of the victim, Sub Inspector of Police, Banjara Hills P. S. , registered a case in Crime No. 468/2000 under Section 498-A IPC and took up investigation. ( 3 ) DURING the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police examined the complainant - D. K. Samara Simha Reddy (father of the victim), Smt. D. K. Sulochana (mother of the victim), Sri Raguma Reddy and Sri Jana Reddy as witnesses to corroborate the version of the complainant and Deepthi and Sravanthi to whom the victim said to have revealed earlier about the harassment and misbehaviour of accused No. 2. Detailed statement of the victim - D. Manisha Reddy is taken. All the Witnesses LWs 1 to 8 stated that the victim- Manisha Reddy was harassed by her husband and in-laws demanding dowry and the father-in-law of the victim misbehaved with her, and therefore, the victim took extreme step to commit suicide due to mental torture meted out to her by her husband and her in-laws. The victim herself stated that she was tortured by the husband and in-laws demanding dowry and her father-in-law (Damodar Reddy) misbehaved with her and made attempts to outrage her modesty. The entire investigation was conducted by the Sub Inspector of Police and on the same day when the victim was hospitalized he has visited the scene of offence and seized two suicidal notes left by the victim and also empty strips of Restyle tablets under the cover of panchanama in the presence mediators LWs 9 and 10. All the accused obtained anticipatory bails from the High Court. ( 4 ) AFTER completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet stating that the investigation fully established beyond reasonable doubt that LW-6 (D. Manisha Reddy - victim) married to A-1 (D. Surender Reddy) on 09/05/1997 and after the marriage, she joined her husband and in-laws at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, to lead a conjugal life. In the marriage, her father gave 3 storied building worth about Rs. 50,00,000. 00 and gold ornaments worth about Rs. 12,00,000. 00 and other household articles as "streedhanam" to her. In the marriage, her father gave 3 storied building worth about Rs. 50,00,000. 00 and gold ornaments worth about Rs. 12,00,000. 00 and other household articles as "streedhanam" to her. After one month of the marriage, she was subjected to cruelty by A-1 to A-3 and was harassed on some pretext or the other demanding dowry, as they were not happy with "streedhanam" given in the marriage. Even her father-in-law (D. Damodar Reddy - A-2) misbehaved with her with an intention to outrage her modesty by touching her physically and making vulgar gestures. When the health of the victim was getting deteriorated due to harassment in June, 1998, her father took her to their house and she was staying there. The accused did not bother to take her to their house but used to threaten her on telephone demanding dowry. Unable to bear the mental torture and agony, she attempted to commit suicide. A-1 to A-3 harassed LW-6 both mentally and physically demanding additional dowry and they are liable for punishment under Section 498-A IPC. ( 5 ) SRI V. Pattabhi learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that from the entire perusal of the case from First Information Report onwards to the Charge Sheet including the statements, documents which go with it, there is no material to make out any offence under Section 498-A IPC. FIR does not at all make out any ingredients even to register a case under Section 498-A IPC as FIR shows that she was admitted in the hospital suspecting some mischief of harassment meted out to her by her husband and in-laws. He further states that as per the investigation there is no dowry at all involved in this case and there is not even a whisper of allegation that there is any demand for dowry or property before or at the time of the marriage. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of dowry harassment. Even according to the version of the parents of the victim and the prosecution case, the property given to her as "streedhanam" alone which still stands in the name of her father, and therefore, the question of any demand of dowry does not arise at all. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of dowry harassment. Even according to the version of the parents of the victim and the prosecution case, the property given to her as "streedhanam" alone which still stands in the name of her father, and therefore, the question of any demand of dowry does not arise at all. There is no material on record to show that she was harassed demanding more dowry and there is also no material on record to show that she has consumed tablets and attempted to commit suicide. He further states that there is no such medico legal record and the entire case has been cooked up for the purpose of foisting a false case against the petitioners herein by hook or crook. Her two suicidal notes are fabricated pieces of evidences, which have no evidentiary value except to prosecute the victim herself for the offence under Section 309 IPC. He further states that in fact she ditched her husband A-1 and left the husband s place and had been comfortably staying with her parents for more than 2 years 5 months. The allegations made by the parents and the averments of the charge sheet are incredulous to believe that the petitioners wanted more dowry and they are unhappy with the "streedhan". The entire theme of the prosecution was illogical and even prima facie untenable and unsustainable. He further states that she was staying at her parents on the advice of doctor to stay away from her husband due to her having some health problem which is biological and as such she chose to stay away from her husband and marital home, for which the petitioners were not at all responsible. He further states that she was staying at her parents on the advice of doctor to stay away from her husband due to her having some health problem which is biological and as such she chose to stay away from her husband and marital home, for which the petitioners were not at all responsible. The marriage took place in 1997, she left the marital home in June 1998 for the sake of her health and her pregnancy and on the medical advice to stay apart as far as possible from her husband and the complaint was given on 17/10/2000 i. e. , 2 years 5 months after she left the marital home she stayed away far from any of these petitioners and at her parental house and as per the statement of the complainant they were trying to compromise with her in-laws and to send her back to her marital home and she did not like that stand of her parents and so on 16/10/2000 she attempted to commit suicide by swallowing some Restyl tablets in her house. The fact of her parents still wanting her to send to her marital home shows that her parents are confident and sure of their daughter s future and safety at the hands of these petitioners, and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners subjected her to cruelty. He further submits that the victim is accustomed to take false stands and she has taken a contrary stand before the Family Court stating that she has not received the house as "streedhanam" and she denied that she ever made any statement to the police that she got a house as "streedhanam". The affidavit filed by the victim before the Family Court is found to be untrue and incorrect statement which were made up specifically for the purpose of interim maintenance in the OP filed by her husband, and therefore, her version is not believable and the accusation on the face of it false and incredulous and motivated by anger and vengeance. The affidavit filed by the victim before the Family Court is found to be untrue and incorrect statement which were made up specifically for the purpose of interim maintenance in the OP filed by her husband, and therefore, her version is not believable and the accusation on the face of it false and incredulous and motivated by anger and vengeance. She never would have hid them the harassment meted out by her husband and parents-in-law to her parents all these two years and five months of her stay with them nor her parents would have kept quiet and not taken any action against the wrong doers had they known of it nor would they have decided to send their daughter back to such in-laws place. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argued that the material on record produced by the prosecution as well as the accused clearly make out the accusation are totally false, untrue and liable to be quashed as the material on record no case of cruelty is made out as defined under Section 498-A IPC. ( 6 ) THE petitioner filed Crl. M. P. No. 2559/2000 under Section 239 of Cr. P. C. seeking discharge of the petitioners (A-1 to A-3) in CC No. 87/2001 on the file of the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate: Cum: Mahila Court, Hyderabad, and the learned Magistrate by order dated 16/10/2001 dismissed the said application stating that prima facie a case is made against the petitioners to attract the offence under Section 498-A IPC. Having dissatisfied with the reasons given by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners filed this Criminal Petition to quash the said proceedings. ( 7 ) THE question that arises for consideration upon the consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, as to whether there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused to discharge them and quash the proceedings. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate after consideration and upon hearing the accused to discharge them is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offence and therefore they are not liable to be discharged. ( 8 ) THE learned Magistrate after consideration and upon hearing the accused to discharge them is of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused have committed the offence and therefore they are not liable to be discharged. ( 9 ) WHEN the victim was admitted in the hospital on 17/10/2000, she was treated as medico legal case and the hospital authorities informed the Banjara Hills P. S. and on such information the police went to the hospital and then the father of the victim gave a complaint on the intervening night of 17/18/10/2000 stating that while he was sitting in the house of Sri Jana Reddy along with Sri Raguma Reddy to discuss about the future of his youngest daughter - Smt Manisha Reddy as she has been subjected to lot of mental harassment by her husband and parents-in-law, his co-brother s daughter - Deepthi came in hurry and informed that Manisha had gone into unconsciousness and were suspecting some mischief. Immediately he rushed home and shifted her to Apollo Hospital in an unconscious condition. On that, the police registered Crime No. 468/2000 under Section 498-A IPC on 18/10/2000 at 2-10 hrs. The statement of D. K. Samarasimha Reddy was also recorded on 18/10/2000 in which he has stated that in the marriage he gave 3 storied building worth Rs. 50,00,000. 00, gold ornaments worth Rs. 12,00,000. 00 and house-hold articles as "streedhanam" to his daughter but the said building is not yet transferred in favour of his daughter. However, she and her husband collect the rents. After the marriage, her daughter joined her marital home and led married life and she was happy with her husband about one month but subsequently she was subjected to harassment and torture. Whenever she used to visit their house, she used to complain about her father-in-law and mother-in-law stating that they were not happy with the Streedhan and it is not upto their expectation and they were torturing her mentally demanding more dowry amount to develop their business. Whenever she brought instances of the harassment to the notice of her husband, he was supporting his parents and he too not happy with the Streedhan given in the marriage and used to utter that if she does not want bear such instances keep quiet and live like a dog. Whenever she brought instances of the harassment to the notice of her husband, he was supporting his parents and he too not happy with the Streedhan given in the marriage and used to utter that if she does not want bear such instances keep quiet and live like a dog. His daughter used to tell him that whenever his daughter attends the functions along with her in-laws, they used to say her about giving huge dowry and had her husband got married with another girl, they would have got more and sufficient dowry. She also used to tell him that her brother-in-law (Srinivas Reddy), a paralysis patient always used to hate her. But the complainant and his wife used to console their daughter thinking that one day or the other they would realize their fault and look after well but their hopes were shattered and in June, 1998 when he along with his wife were in United States of America, he received information that his daughter was ill and her health was getting deteriorated day by day and therefore he proponed his programme and returned to India along with his wife and took his daughter to their house and since then she was staying with them. When she was at their house, she lost her pregnancy and when they asked the reasons, she informed that when she was pregnant doctor advised her to take bed rest and not to climb steps, she requested her parents-in-law to permit her to stay in the ground floor as her bed room is in the upstairs but they did not oblige. Because of strain in climbing the steps and coming down, she lost her pregnancy. Even after coming to know about her loss of pregnancy, neither her husband nor her in-laws visited their house to console her and to ascertain her welfare. On many occasions, himself and his family friends tried their level best to patch up the differences between his daughter and her in-laws by pacifying them but because of arrogant attitude of her parents-in-law and her husband, they could not succeed in their effort to reach an amicable solution. Hoping well in future she bore all sorts of harassment and torture meted out to her at the house of in-laws. Hoping well in future she bore all sorts of harassment and torture meted out to her at the house of in-laws. During her stay at their house since 1998 his son-in-law and parents-in-law used to threaten his daughter on telephone that they will not take her back to their house unless her father fulfills their demand o dowry and they would arrange marriage to their son with another woman. On 17/10/2000 when he was sitting at the house of Jana Reddy along with Raguma Reddy discussing about her future as she had been subjected to lot of mental harassment by her husband and in-laws, he was informed by Deepthi that Manisha Reddy had gone into unconscious state and suspecting some mischief, he rushed to home and got her admitted in the Apollo Hospital. He came to know that she swallowed 30 tablets of 0. 5 mg Restyl to commit suicide. She took such an extreme step unable to bear torture meted out to her by husband and in-laws. She left two suicidal notes stating that she does not want to continue a compromise life, her father-in-law misbehaved with her and tried for physical contacts etc. , as there is no other alternative except to lodge a complaint. ( 10 ) SMT. D. K. SULOCHANA (mother of the victim) also stated to the same effect as that of her husband - D. K. Samarasimha Reddy. Sri Raguma Reddy and Sri Jana Reddy corroborated the statements of the parents of the victim and further stated that Sri Samarasimha Reddy informed them that there were differences between the victim and her husband and parents-in-law and that they were harassing her mentally and physically blaming that "streedhan" given in the marriage was not sufficient and was not to their expectation and also demanding dowry to develop their business. He sought their help to patch up the differences and to bring amicable solution and that they have tried their level best to pacify the husband and in-laws of Manisha Reddy to settle the dispute but they could not succeed in their effort because of arrogant attitude of Surender Reddy (A-1) and in-laws (Damodar Reddy and Radhamma ). He sought their help to patch up the differences and to bring amicable solution and that they have tried their level best to pacify the husband and in-laws of Manisha Reddy to settle the dispute but they could not succeed in their effort because of arrogant attitude of Surender Reddy (A-1) and in-laws (Damodar Reddy and Radhamma ). They also came to know about the suicidal note in her bedroom at her parent s house that she does not want the compromise life with her father-in-law (Damodar Reddy) who misbehaved with her and tried for physical contact etc. , and also due to constant harassment by her husband and parents-in-law, she attempted to commit suicide. Kumari Deepthi and Sravanthi also stated to the same effect about the harassment meted out to the victim by her husband and parents-in-law and also about the misbehaviour of her father-in-law who is said to have tried for physical contact with her. ( 11 ) SMT Manisha Reddy (victim) stated about the misbehaviour of her father-in-law which has not been revealed to her parents or to her husband but however she revealed the facts to her close friends Sravanthi and Haritha who consoled and encouraged her to keep quiet and thinking that one day or the other her father-in-law would definitely realize his fault and desist from his acts. The said Sravanthi and Haritha also stated that the victim revealed them about the misbehaviourial acts of A-2. She further stated that when she made a request to her parents-in-law and husband to permit her to stay in the ground floor as the doctor has advised her to take bed rest and not to climb the stairs as her bedroom was on the upstairs but they did not oblige her. Due to climbing of the stairs, she lost her pregnancy immediately after her going to her parents house and she told the reason for the loosing pregnancy to her parents also. Due to climbing of the stairs, she lost her pregnancy immediately after her going to her parents house and she told the reason for the loosing pregnancy to her parents also. Even after having came to know about the loss of pregnancy neither her husband nor her parents-in-law visited her to console her and they did not enquire about her welfare instead of that they used to threaten her stating that they will not allow her to lead a conjugal life in their house and they also took her jewellery, house documents, educational certificates, multi visa and all her belongings stating that unless her father fulfills their demand of dowry they will not return and also they would arrange remarriage for their son. The differences could not be patched up between her and her in-laws and they could not succeed in their effort to look for an amicable settlement as her parents were planning to compromise with her in-laws and send her to her marital home and in the evening she had swallowed 30 Restyle tablets to commit suicide by leaving two suicidal notes. She decided to take such an extreme step to commit suicide because she fed up with continuous constant harassment and torture meted out to her by her husband - Surender Reddy and parents-in-law (Damodar Reddy and Radhamma ). ( 12 ) IT appears that A-1 husband of the victim filed OP No. 899/2000 on the file of the Family Court, Hyderabad for divorce against her in which she filed IA 17/2000 for monthly maintenance and legal expenses for conducting the litigation in which she stated that she has no independent source of income and the house actually belongs to her father as head of the joint family and he continues to be the owner of the house and in order to proficiate hunger of her husband and parents-in-law for dowry, her father compelled her husband and to take rental income from the said house and therefore she is entitled for maintenance. She further stated that she is not the owner of the said house and she has not received it as "streedhan" and the alleged statements given to Banjara Hills P. S. is neither true nor admissible in evidence, accused No. 1 himself is in possession of all the original documents and Xerox copies of which were produced in the Court and because of the accused is hungry for dowry in order to satisfy his hungry her father executed the so called Settlement Deed on 19/07/1996. After the marriage A-1 himself was operating her bank account and A-1 himself got her bank account transferred to Bank of Baroda, Masab Tank Branch, Hyderabad from Vysya Bank, Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad and he was appropriating the entire rental income. A-1 wanted the bank account in her name for the purpose of income tax and A-1 made her as Director of M/s. Bactolac Formulating Pvt Ltd but she was never paid a single pie either as Director or as shareholder and therefore she is entitled for the maintenance. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the victim and her parents is that the house property given as "streedhan" but whereas a different plea was taken in the O. P. , and therefore, the statement of the victim girl and her parents with regard to the house property as "streedhan" is incorrect and the "streedhan" was not a dowry and there was no demand of dowry or "streedhan" before or after the marriage. However, on considering the rival contentions of both the parties, the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad by order dated 25/06/2001 in IA No. 17/2001 in OP No. 899/2001 held that the victim i. e. , the wife of the 1st petitioner is entitled to claim interim maintenance with equal luxuries, status and privileges by taking into consideration apart from rental income she is entitled to the interim maintenance from the 1st petitioner @ Rs. 4,000/- p. m. till the disposal of the divorce O. P. and Rs. 2,000. 00 p. m. towards legal expenses. ( 14 ) IF the contents of the charge sheet and the statements of LWs. 1 to 12 cited in support of the prosecution case are unrebutted after the regular trial i. e. , the house worth Rs. 50,00,000. 00, jewellery worth Rs. 12,00,000. 2,000. 00 p. m. towards legal expenses. ( 14 ) IF the contents of the charge sheet and the statements of LWs. 1 to 12 cited in support of the prosecution case are unrebutted after the regular trial i. e. , the house worth Rs. 50,00,000. 00, jewellery worth Rs. 12,00,000. 00 and other household articles was given as "streedhan" property and the accused having not satisfied with the said "streedhan" started harassing the victim one month after the marriage by saying that the "streedhan" is not upto their expectation and they were demanding dowry for expansion of their business and that she was not allowed to stay at the ground floor to protect her pregnancy as per the doctor s advice and her health was deteriorated and therefore she was taken to her parents house where she lost her pregnancy and even after her loosing her pregnancy neither her husband nor her parents-in-law consoled her and on the other hand they were threatening on telephone that until their demand of dowry is fulfilled, she will not be allowed to lead a conjugal life with her husband, and if all these allegations are proved, their action will constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC, as their action is nothing but cruelty. Apart from that there is a specific allegation against A-2 that he misbehaved with the victim by uttering vulgar language and making gestures and sometimes he used to say that "the victim girl looks very smart if she wears tight dress" etc. , and on the pretext of helping him in the chemical factory at Kothur, Ranga Reddy District, he used to take her in the car along with him and while driving also he used to misbehave and he used to utter vulgar language intentionally touching her body putting hands on her shoulders and touching her thighs. Being a member of respected family and keeping in mind their family, she did not disclose the misbehaviour of her father in law either to her parents or to her husband, but however, she revealed the same to her close friends viz. , Sravanthi and Haritha who consoled and encouraged her to keep quiet thinking that one day or the other her father-in-law will definitely realize the same and desist from his acts. Those two friends Sravanthi and Haritha are cited as LWs 7 and 8. , Sravanthi and Haritha who consoled and encouraged her to keep quiet thinking that one day or the other her father-in-law will definitely realize the same and desist from his acts. Those two friends Sravanthi and Haritha are cited as LWs 7 and 8. She further alleged that the accused took her entire jewellery, house documents, educational certificates, multi visa and all her belongings with a view to fulfill their demand of dowry and they have not allowed her to lead a conjugal life with her husband and they were threatening that they would arrange a remarriage to their son (A-1 ). ( 15 ) IT is relevant to consider whether "streedhan" property also comes within the definition of the dowry. The Apex Court in the case of S. GOPAL REDDY V. STATE OF A. P. at Para 6 to 16 held as follows: 6. Before proceeding further, we consider it desirable to notice some of the relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. "section 2 - 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 person, 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 case of person to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Section 3 - Penalty for giving or taking dowry - If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years (substituted for the words "six months" w. e. f. 19/11/1986 ). Section - 4 Penalty for demanding dowry - If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. "7. 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". 8. Section 4 of the Act aims at discouraging the very "demand" of "dowry" as a consideration for the marriage between the parties thereto and lays down that if any person after the commencement of the Act, "demand", directly or indirectly", from the parents of guardians 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 Rs. 5,000. 00 or with both. Thus, it would be seen that Section 4 makes punishable the very demand of property or valuable security as a consideration for marriage, which demand, if satisfied, would constitute the graver offence under Section 3 of the Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more. 9. 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. 9. 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 emphasized 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 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 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 recognized claim and is relatable only the 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. 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 quo for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bridegroom 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. 10. It is well known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The Courts must look to the object, which the statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agreed with Mr. Rao that it is only the property or valuable security given at the time of marriage which would bring the same within the definition of dowry punishable under the Act as such an interpretation would be defeating the very object for which the Act was enacted. Keeping in view the object of the Act, "demand of dowry" as a consideration for a proposed marriage would also come within the meaning of the expression dowry under the Act. If we were to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the demand made at or after marriage, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act, some serious consequences which the legislature wanted to avoid, or bound to follow. If we were to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the demand made at or after marriage, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act, some serious consequences which the legislature wanted to avoid, or bound to follow. Take for example, a case where the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives make a demand of dowry during marriage negations and later on after brining to bridal party to the bride s house find that the bride or her parents or relatives have not met the earlier demand and call off the marriage and leave the bride s house should they escape the punishment under the Act. The answer has to be an emphatic no . It would be adding insult to injury if we were to countenance that their action would not attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Such an interpretation would frustrate the very object of the Act and would also run contrary to the accepted principles relating to the interpretation of statutes. 11. . . . . . . 12. . . . . . . . 13. . . . . . . . . 14. An argument, similar to the one as raised by Mr. Rao regarding the use of the expressions bride and bridegroom occurring in Section 4 of the Act to urge that "demand" of property or valuable security would not be "dowry" if it is made during the negotiations for marriage until the boy and the girl acquire the statutes of bridegroom and bride , at or immediately after the marriage, was raised and repelled by this Court in L. V. JADHAV s case ( AIR 1983 SC 1219 (supra ). 15. In L. V. JADHAV s case (supra) while interpreting the meaning of dowry under Section 2 of the Act and correlating it to the requirements of Section 4 of the Act, the Bench observed at pp. 1223-24):". . . SECTION 4 which lays down that "if any person after the commencement of this Act, demands, directly or indirectly from the parents 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". According to Webster s New World Dictionary, 1962 Edn. According to Webster s New World Dictionary, 1962 Edn. Bride means a woman who has just been married or is about to be married, and bridegroom means a man who has just been married or is about to be married. If we give this strict meaning of a bride or a bridegroom used in Section 4 of the Act, property or valuable security demanded and consented to be given prior to the time when the woman had become a bride or the man had become a bridegroom may not be "dowry" within the meaning of the Act. 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 Section 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 Section 2 of the Act. We are also of the opinion that the object of Section 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 Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for making the view that the initial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence. . . . " 16. Therefore, interpreting the expression dowry and demand in the context of the scheme of the Act, we are of the opinion that any demand of dowry made before at or after the marriage, where such demand is made as a consideration for marriage would attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. " ( 16 ) A reading of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court makes it clear that "streedhan" property said to have been given which is not the expectation of the accused is nothing but a dowry and further demand of dowry for expansion of their business one of the main circumstances to subject the victim to cruelty apart from other reasons i. e. , misbehaviour of her father in law (A-2 ). It is specifically stated that none of the accused persons consoled her when the victim girl lost her pregnancy, but on the other hand, they have been continuously harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty on telephone to meet their demand of dowry, and therefore, she was continuously subjected to mental cruelty. The further statement of her is that multi visa, educational certificates, jewellery and the documents of the property have been retained by the accused by themselves and the said documents are also filed in OP proceedings clearly shows that they were subjecting the victim to cruelty in respect of the Streedhan property and also further demand of dowry. ( 17 ) FOR 2 years 5 months there appears to be no attempt on the part of the accused to get the victim to their house to lead a conjugal life with her husband, but on the other hand, the attempts made by the elders to patch up the differences and the disputes, have been failed which strengthens the case of the prosecution that as the demand of the dowry of the accused is not fulfilled they have not allowed the victim to lead a conjugal life with her husband. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is not satisfied with Streedhan property and demand of dowry for expansion of their business, which was not met by the de facto complainant etc. , resulted ultimately to commit suicide, by the victim girl due to continuous mental cruelty meted out by the accused. The learned Magistrate has rightly opined that the allegations prima facie show an offence committed by the accused under Section 498-A IPC. A perusal of the charge sheet shows that there are sufficient grounds and a case has been made out for the trial by the prosecution. Therefore, this Court cannot enter into speculation and consider the pros and cons of the matter and the weightage of the evidence and probabilities of the case, which is a function of a trial court. There are sufficient grounds for continuance of the proceedings against the accused for the trial. The trial court also found in the discharge application filed by the accused that prima facie a case has been made out against the accused to prosecute them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. There are sufficient grounds for continuance of the proceedings against the accused for the trial. The trial court also found in the discharge application filed by the accused that prima facie a case has been made out against the accused to prosecute them for the offence under Section 498-A IPC. If the averments made in the charge sheet and the statements made in support of it are proved, there is no doubt that the said averments clearly constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The charge is triable and there is no sufficient ground to discharge under Section 227 and the learned Magistrate also rightly refused to discharge the accused. Had the victim died in her attempt to commit suicide on account of the demand of dowry made by the accused, it would have been a dowry death under Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of Indian Evidence Act. ( 18 ) IF the averments made in the charge sheet are prima facie establishes the offence under Section 498-A, it is expected in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. This Court cannot prejudge the whole issue without a trial of the accused persons. A reading of the charge sheet, statements and all the documents discloses of the commission of the offence under Section 498-A IPC which is triable by the learned Magistrate and this Court cannot take up the task of the Magistrate and consider the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner without there being a trial of the case. ( 19 ) THE scope and powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. has been narrowed down in several judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court and the power under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is to be exercised with due care and caution and very sparingly. In MEDCHAL CHEMICALS and PHARMA (P) LTD V. BIOLOICAL E. LTD the Apex Court held as follows:"14. Needless to record however and it being a settled principle of law that to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code, the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint and the High Court at that stage has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint shall be taken into consideration without any critical examination of the same. But the offence ought to appear ex facie on the complaint. The observations in Nagawwa V. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi (1976 3 SCC 1976) lend support to the above statement of law: (SCC p. 741, Para 5) " (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused. (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers form fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. The cases mentioned by us are purely illustrative and provide sufficient guidelines to indicate contingencies where the High Court can quash proceedings. " ( 20 ) ONCE allegations made in the charge sheet makes out a prima facie case and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and after issuance of the process, it is for the Magistrate to consider the same and on consideration the learned Magistrate rightly came to the conclusion that the averments made prima facie constitutes an offences under Section 498-A, and therefore, it is a case to be tried and the accused are not entitled for the discharge. In exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court cannot consider some pleadings here and there, the affidavit of the victim submitted in the OP filed by A-1 and the said pleadings are subjected to proof at the time of the trial of the case and this Court under Section 482 of the Code cannot consider the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and come to the conclusion that trial of the case against the accused is abuse of process of law or that there will be gross miscarriage of justice. This Court cannot look into several documents purpuported to have been filed by the victim in the divorce proceedings and rely on some orders/observations made thereunder as held by the Apex Court in MARRATT RUBBER LTD V. J. K. MARATTUKALAM. ( 21 ) THE cruelty as contemplated under Section 498-A IPC denotes the state of conduct, which is painful and distressing to the victim. There is a state of conduct by the accused to the victim, which can be attributed to be painful or distressing, which constitutes an offence under Section 498-A for subjecting her to cruelty. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the scope of the Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. There is a state of conduct by the accused to the victim, which can be attributed to be painful or distressing, which constitutes an offence under Section 498-A for subjecting her to cruelty. ( 22 ) CONSIDERING the scope of the Sections 227 and 228 of Cr. P. C. with regard to framing of the charges against the accused whether it is necessary to proceed to conduct the trial or the accused have to be discharged if the material produced do not disclose in constitution of any evidence and if the trial would only be in exercise of futility and sheer waste of time, it is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings at the stage of Section 227 of the Code itself but the Apex Court in SATISH MEHRA V. DELHI ADMINSITRATION in respect of a complaint made by the wife against her husband stating that the husband committed sexual offence against her 18 month old female child which in fact was investigated earlier by the New York Police that the complaint bereft of truth hook, line and sinker and therefore similar complaint made in India was made without any basis and in the facts and special circumstances of the case and as there was an agreement between the parties for divorce and certain other things, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings and the facts of the said case absolutely have no application to the facts of the present case. ( 23 ) SOME other cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are the cases where a trial took place and on the appreciation of the evidence available on record the courts considered the commission of the particular offence but whereas in the instant case there being without any trial, it cannot be said that the perusal of the charge sheet and the statements made by the list of witnesses do not constitute an offence under Section 498-A IPC for the trial of the act used. ( 24 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I hold that there are prima facie allegations which constitute the commission of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, I therefore hold that the trial of the accused cannot be said that it is abuse of process of court or that there will be miscarriage of justice. ( 24 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I hold that there are prima facie allegations which constitute the commission of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, I therefore hold that the trial of the accused cannot be said that it is abuse of process of court or that there will be miscarriage of justice. I do not see any merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and Criminal Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Copyright (c) manupatra. com Pvt. Ltd.