Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 546 (ALL)

VIKAS v. STATE OF U. P.

2005-03-22

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2005
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vivek Dhaka, Sri V. K. Singh and Sri M. N. Singh learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the complainant. ( 2 ) THIS application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Vikas with a prayer to release the applicant on bail in case Crime No. 51 of 2005, under Section 498-A and 406 I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Kankar Khera, district Meerut. ( 3 ) THE facts in brief of the case are that the first informant Ratan Lal lodged an F. I. R. at police station Kankar Khera on 3. 2. 2005 at 4. 30 p. m. in respect of the alleged incident dated 3. 2. 2005 which occurred at 11. 00 a. m. , in vicinity of mohalla Sainik Bihar, Meerut against the applicant, his mother, his maternal uncle namely Shreepal, Smt Nirmala wife of Shreepal and Vinod, the Mausera brother of the applicant, on the basis of the following allegations: That the marriage of applicant Vikas was settled with Km. Kanchan the daughter of the first informant. The engagement ceremony was solemnized on 30. 1. 2005 in which some articles as mentioned in the list, were given to the accused persons. Thereafter, it was settled that the marriage will be solemnized on 3. 2. 2005. The Barat for the same purpose was to come on 3. 2. 2005 at 6. 00 p. m. from the house of the applicant but on 3. 2. 2005 at about 11. 000 a. m. some persons including the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother of the applicant came at the house of the complainant and asked that the mother of the applicant has told that Rs. 51,000/- and one motorcycle may be given to them prior to arrival of the Barat. If the aforesaid demand is fulfilled, the Barat will reach otherwise not. The complainant has shown his inability to fulfill the aforesaid demand and thereafter, the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 3. 2. 2005 at about 4. If the aforesaid demand is fulfilled, the Barat will reach otherwise not. The complainant has shown his inability to fulfill the aforesaid demand and thereafter, the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F. I. R. against the applicant and other co-accused persons on 3. 2. 2005 at about 4. 30 p. m. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no demand of dowry. The marriage was settled without dowry, even in the engagement ceremony the articles shown in the list, were not given to the applicant. ( 5 ) THE allegation in respect of demand of dowry made by the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother of the applicant is apparently false and baseless, because they have no interest to make such demand and they were not in anywhere benefited by fulfillment of such demand and in the F. I. R. the name of any witness in whose presence such demand of the dowry was made, is not mentioned as such the entire allegations levelled against the applicant and other co-accused persons are false and baseless. The marriage of the applicant was settled with Km. Kanchan the daughter. of the first informant. It was scheduled to be solemnized on 3. 2. 2005, but at the instance of one Surendra the brother-in-law (sisters husband) of Km. Kanchan the first informant made up his mind not to perform the marriage of the applicant with Km. Kanchan because Surendra Singh was having some illicit relations with Km. Kanchan and he wanted to get her married at some nearby place with his close person so that she may be easily available for him to continue his relations. On 3. 2. 2005 the said Surendra gave telephonic information to the family member of the applicant that the marriage of Km. Kanchan with Vikas will not be solemnized, on that information the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother of the applicant went to the house of the first informant at 11. 00 a. m. to know the reasons for denial of the marriage and to persuade him to solemnize the marriage, but the first informant demanded the huge amount of money. 00 a. m. to know the reasons for denial of the marriage and to persuade him to solemnize the marriage, but the first informant demanded the huge amount of money. They refused to accept the demand of the first informant then he lodged the F. I. R. , in order to harass and extract the huge amount of money from the family members of the applicant. Such story was published in the daily newspaper Dainikjagranon 4. 2. 2005. The F. I. R. is delayed by five hours. The distance of the police station was only one kilometre from the place of the occurrence and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F. I. R. It is further contended that admittedly no marriage of the applicant with Km. Kanchan was solemnized. So the applicant cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of the husband, so the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. is not made out on the basis of the allegations made in the F. I. R. So for as the offence under Section 406 I. P. C. is concerned, the first informant has failed to substantiate such allegations. Even in the counter affidavit the list of the articles given in the engagement ceremony no receipt of purchase has been filed, and there is no allegation that the accused have refused to return the articles, so the offence under Section 406 I. P. C. is not made out. The allegations made against the applicant are false and frivolous. The applicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence, so he is entitled to be released on bail because he is in jail since 18. 2. 2005. ( 6 ) THE contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant are opposed by the learned A. G. A. and Sri B. B. Paul learned counsel for the complainant by stating that admittedly the marriage of Km. Kanchan was settled with the applicant and the applicant did not bring the Barat to perform the marriage on 3. 2. 2005. The demand of dowry was made at his saying by his maternal uncle and others. The demand of the dowry was not fulfilled by the first informant and it is admitted by the applicant that the engagement ceremony was performed. 2. 2005. The demand of dowry was made at his saying by his maternal uncle and others. The demand of the dowry was not fulfilled by the first informant and it is admitted by the applicant that the engagement ceremony was performed. It is submitted that in that ceremony the articles were given, which are mentioned in the list and on the basis of the allegations, the offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. is made out because the applicant was proposed husband, for the purpose of Section 498-A I. P. C, the performance of marriage is not necessary. In support of his submission he cited a case of the Apex Court S. Gopal Reddy v. State of AP, in which the Honble Apex Court has taken the view that for the purpose of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act the marriage includes the proposed marriage also. So the applicant is not entitled for bail. ( 7 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Shri B. B. Paul, learned counsel for the complainant and from the perusal of the record, in the present case it is admitted that the marriage of the applicant was settled with Km. Kanchan, the daughter of the first informant which was scheduled to be solemnized on 3. 2. 2005 and the time of the arrival of the Barat was also fixed as 6 p. m. on 3. 2. 2005. It is also admitted that the engagement ceremony was performed. It is also admitted that the marriage was not solemnized. On the date of marriage at about 11 a. m. the maternal uncle, maternal aunt and Mausera brother of the applicant went to the house of first informant and conveyed the message given by the applicant and his mother in respect of demand of dowry and non-fulfilment of demand they refused to bring the Barat. The first informant has shown his inability to fulfill the said demand and lodged F. I. R. on 3. 2. 2005 at 4. 30 p. m. in which no name of the witness has been mentioned. The first informant has shown his inability to fulfill the said demand and lodged F. I. R. on 3. 2. 2005 at 4. 30 p. m. in which no name of the witness has been mentioned. It was lodged before, the time of the arrival of the Barat which was scheduled at 6 p. m. The first informant did not wait for the time of the arrival of the Barat and he did not make any efforts to ascertain truthfulness of the message conveyed to him, even he did not -make any effort to pursue the applicant and his family members for bringing the Barat, in such circumstances it may be a strong possibility that the first informant himself has cancelled marriage. Even according to the prosecution version there is no allegation that there was any demand of dowry at any stage of negotiation for marriage prior to 3. 2. 2005 because he is not having sufficient source of income, he is having a small shop of general merchant and living in a small rented house. ( 8 ) THERE is no allegation that any article given by the first informant was demanded by the applicant or any other accused as a consideration for marriage and if any article was given in the engagement ceremony it was a gift for which the demand of return would have been made by the first informant. Any such demand was not made and there is no allegation that the applicant and other accused had refused to return the article given in engagement ceremony so it cannot be said that the applicant and others have misappropriated the article and the money given in the engagement ceremony by the first informant and on the basis of the allegation, made the offence under Section 498-A is not made out, because for the purpose of Section 498- A, it is a necessary ingredient that the marriage must be performed. After the marriage a person can be said a husband of a woman and that woman can be said a wife. After the marriage a person can be said a husband of a woman and that woman can be said a wife. The view taken by the Apex Court in the case of S. Gopal Reddy (supra) is far the interpretation of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act because the demand of dowry can be raised at any stage of negotiation for marriage, it may be before, at or after the marriage, where such demand is made as a consideration for marriage would attract Section 4 of the Act, for the purpose of this Act the marriage includes the proposed marriage also, because the Dowry Prohibition Act is a piece of social legislation, which aims to check the growing menace of social evil of dowry. For this provision the performance of the marriage is not necessarily required but this interpretation cannot give any support to the contention of learned counsel for the complainant because for the interpretation of Section 498-A the intention of the Legislature is very clear. It is for the purpose of protection to the married woman so that after marriage she may not be harassed or subjected to cruelty. In Section 498-A the words are used being the husband so the person can be said a husband only after the marriage and the woman also can be said a wife after her marriage. In the present case, admittedly, the marriage has not taken place, so no offence under Section 498-A I. P. C. is made out. Even as per the allegation made in the F. I. R. , there is no fulfillment of the ingredients of Section 406 I. P. C. The applicant is in jail since 18/2/2005. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. ( 9 ) LET the applicant Vikas involved in case Crime No. 51 of 2005, under Sections 498-A and 406 I. P. C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P. S. Kankar Khera, district Meerut be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C. J. M. Meerut. Application allowed. .