Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 789 (MP)

Meena Gupta v. Jaiprakash Gupta

2002-08-20

P.C.AGARWAL

body2002
JUDGMENT The petitioner-complainant has challenged non- framing of charges under Ss. 406 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and 3 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Act for short) against respondents No.1 to 7 of MCre. No.1993/02 and under S. 498-A, 120-B, 406 of the Code and under S. 3 and 4 of the Act against Smt. Nirmala Jadon (R-2) in M. Cr.C No. 1995/02 by JMFC Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13/2000 (State v. Jai Prakash Gupta and 8 others) The petitioner-complainant has challenged non framing of charges under Ss. 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (Code for short) and 3 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (Act for short) against respondents No. I to 7 of MCrC No. 1993/02 and under S. 498A, 120B, 406 of the Code and under S. 3 and 4 of the Act against Smt. Nirmala Jadon (R-2) in M.Cr.e. No. 1995/02 by JMFC Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 13/2000 (State v. Jai Prakash Gupta and 8 others) The petitioner had moved the Sessions Court by revision No. 159/01 and 202/01 but did not succeed there. Preliminary objection has been taken on basis of Dharampal v. Ramshri ( (1993) 1 SCC 435 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 333) that there can be no second revision before the High Court after dismissal of first one by the Court of Sessions. However, the same view has been disapproved in Krishnan v. Krishna Venni (1997 SCC (Cri) 544). In Jilendra Kumar Jain v. State of Delhi (1999 SCC (Cri.) 77) the Hon. Apex Court has directed that petition under S. 482 of the Code filed after dismissal of revision should not be dismissed by the High Court merely on the ground that the same amounts to a second revision petition. Anyway, inherent power of the High Court are still available under S. 482, though of course such powers have to be exercised sparingly so as to avoid multiplicity of proceedings unnecessary delay in trial and protraction of proceedings. Such power has to be exercised ex-debit justifies to avoid abuse of process of Court. Definitely a prima facie case under S. 406 of the Code and S. 3/4 of the Act was made out against respondents No.1 to 7 in M. CrC 1993/02. Such power has to be exercised ex-debit justifies to avoid abuse of process of Court. Definitely a prima facie case under S. 406 of the Code and S. 3/4 of the Act was made out against respondents No.1 to 7 in M. CrC 1993/02. The Courts below have not cared to read the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix, her statement recorded on 27.1.2000 and 15.2.2000. Statement of Smt. lndra Bansal, Ku. Satya Bansal and other witnesses Udaiveer Singh Chjauhan, Lalaram Dadoriya, Smt. Kavita Tiwari which clearly prima facie establish such offence. Obviously, property gifted to the bride before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her Stridhwn properties. Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997 SCC (Cri.) 415 and Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (( 1985) 2 SCC 370), to quote the Apex Court: "Properties gifted to the bride before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her Stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. The husband has no control over her Stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof". In case such stridhana property is entrusted to the husband or any other member of the family, dishonest misappropriation or conversion to own use of that property by the husband or such other person by itself amounts to criminal breach of trust. (See supra). Obviously, forcing the bride or her relatives to give out certain properties under coercion would amount to demand of dowry under S. 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, if such demand is made at or before or at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Thus, prima-facie case under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act was also made out. At the time of framing charge, the Court has not to test the veracity of the witnesses. The Court has merely to decide whether a prima facie case is made out. Thus, prima-facie case under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act was also made out. At the time of framing charge, the Court has not to test the veracity of the witnesses. The Court has merely to decide whether a prima facie case is made out. It is not necessary for the Court to ensure that the trial shall end in conviction. Charge can be framed even if strong suspicion exists. Thus, the trial Court has committed an error in not framing charge under S.406 of the Code and section 3 and 4 of the Act against respondents 1 to 7 in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1993/02. The contention of these respondents that no list of gifts as required under the Rules was prepared and subscribed by both the parties and thus no demand of giving or taking the dowry could be established. However, such argument has no force. Demand of giving and taking dowry can be proved by oral evidence also. Non-preparation of a list and not subscribing the same is not determinative of the question. Anyhow, Smt. Nirmala Jodan (R/2) in Misc. Cr Case No. 1995/02 is not a relative of the husband of the petitioner. She is merely the landlady. If she has merely connived with the respondents 1 to 7 of Misc. Cr. Case 1993/02, no charge could be framed against her. The learned trial Court was not in error in not framing any charge against her. In my considered opinion, no sufficient material against her existed on record. Thus, Misc. Cri. Case No. 1993/2002 is allowed. Additional charges against respondents 1 to 7 be framed as per directions given above. Anyhow, Misc. Cri. Case No. 1995/2002 has no substance and is dismissed.