Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 673 (MAD)

J. Maya Devi & Others v. M. Reghunandan

2010-02-18

R.REGUPATHI

body2010
Judgment :- This petition is filed, seeking for a direction to call for the records relating to C.C.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupattur, Vellore District and quash the same. 2. The respondent is the husband of the 1st petitioner and the petitioners 2 and 3 are the parents of the 1st petitioner. 3. The petition is filed to quash the private complaint filed by the respondent/husband against his wife and her parents for the offence punishable under Sec.3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint that he was offered dowry. The respondent/husband herein has preferred a complaint and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thirupattur, Vellore District in C.C.No.59/2009 and the sworn statement has been recorded. In the sworn statement, it is alleged that the marriage between the respondent and the 1st petitioner took place on 1.6.2006 at Thirupathur and at the time of wedding, the petitioners have given 25 sovereigns for the 1st petitioner, 2 sovereigns chain, one sovereign ring and TVS Motor Cycle for the respondent/husband. When they were living together as husband and wife, there was quarrel between them and in the result, the 1st petitioner deserted the matrimonial home and is living with her parents. She has preferred a complaint for demand of dowry, in which, the respondent/husband was arrested and released on bail. Under such circumstances, by preferring a complaint, the respondent contended that an offence is equally made out against the petitioner and her parents for an offence punishable under Sec.3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, since they are also a party to giving dowry. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the object of the enactment of the Dowry Prohibition Act is to safeguard the interest of the wife and her dependants from the menace of demand of dowry. In the case on hand, the respondent/complainant has admitted the receipt of dowry in the sworn statement and the receipt of jewels as well as possession of motor cycle. Under such circumstances, offence will be made out only against the respondent/complainant and not as against the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the very object of Dowry Prohibition Act has got defeated since the petitioners had voluntarily given dowry to the respondent. Under such circumstances, offence will be made out only against the respondent/complainant and not as against the petitioners. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the very object of Dowry Prohibition Act has got defeated since the petitioners had voluntarily given dowry to the respondent. Therefore, he would strenuously argued that the offence is made only against his wife and her parents. 6. I have perused the materials available on record. The object of enactment of Dowry Prohibition Act is to protect the interest of a woman from menace of dowry. In the name of customs, such practice of demanding and receiving dowry is in existence for decades and only to curtail such practice the enactment came into existence. 7. On perusal of the complaint as well as the sworn statement of the complainant, it is clear that the respondent/husband has accepted dowry. Nowhere in the complaint it is alleged that he made it clear to the family members of his wife that he is not at all interested in dowry. There are materials to substantiate that he has received dowry and in particular, a motor cycle, specifically for the purpose of his personal use. Under such circumstances, a presumption could be drawn that only on account of demand of dowry, the jewels and motor cycle have been given. It is stated that the complaint given by the 1st petitioner/wife in C.C.No.22/2009 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 506(2) IPC is pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri and only as a counter blast to the pending case, the present case has been preferred. 8. It is unfortunate that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupattur, without application of mind on the object and the reasons of the enactment of Dowry Prohibition Act, has entertained and recorded sworn statement. 9. Under such circumstances, the proceedings in C.C.No.59 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirupattur is directed to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.