Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision without issuing notice to the Petitioner and thus the same is liable to be set aside on account of the fact that the same is in violation of Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. and principles of natural justice. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely prejudiced the Petitioner. In this regard reliance is placed on Mohd. Afzal and others vs. Noor Nisha Begum and another, 1997 (2) Crimes 493. It is further contended that the daughter of the Petitioner filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2 and his family members for offence under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC wherein it was stated that the Petitioner being the father of the girl had spent Rs. 8 lakhs in the marriage function etc. Respondent No. 1 on the basis of the said complaint of Petitioner‟s daughter filed a complaint case before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for summoning the Petitioner under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short the „DP Act‟). The learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said complaint, however, on a revision being filed by the Respondent, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and directed issuance of process against the Petitioner herein for offence punishable under Section 3, DP Act in view of the decision of this Court in Neera Singh vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 138 (2007) DLT 152. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the judgment of this Court in Neera Singh (Supra) is per incuriam as the same does not consider the provision of Section 7 of the DP Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on Pooja Saxena vs. State and another, 2010 (4) LRC 82 Delhi.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. The facts in nutshell giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that the daughter of the Petitioner Ruchika was married to the son of Respondent No. 1. However, in view of the fact that there was harassment on account of demand of dowry, she filed a complaint before CAW Cell on the basis of which FIR No. 393/2007 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC was registered at PS Krishna Nagar against the Petitioner, his wife, son and daughter. Since in the complaint it was stated that the Petitioner being the father of Ruchika spent Rs. 8 lakhs in the marriage and the Petitioner in addition thereto gave Rs. 50,000/- to the son of Respondent No.1 to fulfill his dowry demand, a complaint under Section 3 of DP Act was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. After recording the pre-summoning evidence of Respondent No. 1 and calling for judicial file in case FIR 393/2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint vide order dated 28th March, 2009 in view of the contradictory pleas of the Complainant/Respondent herein and also the fact that if the Court would permit such a complaint than in each case where a case under Section 498A/406 IPC is registered against the in-laws by a girl, to create pressure the in-laws would also file a complaint under Section 3 DP Act against parents of the girl. Against the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Respondent No. 1 filed revision petition wherein this order was set aside and vide the impugned order dated 18 th July, 2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed summoning the Petitioner for offence under Section 3, DP Act in view of decision in the case of Neera Singh (supra).

7. As regards the next proposition, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order relying upon the decision of this Court in Neera Singh (supra) directed that the Petitioner be summoned. The decision of Neera Singh came up for consideration before this Court in Pooja Saxena (supra) and this Court distinguished the same. There is no dispute to the proposition that Neera Singh (supra) was passed by this Court without taking into consideration the provision of Section 7 (3) of the DP Act. Section 7 (3) of the DP Act reads as under: -

"3. Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

8. It is thus evident that Section 7 (3) is a non obstante clause and will thus prevail on any other law for the time being in force and a statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence under this Act shall not subject him to prosecution under this Act. Thus the decision of this Court in Neera Singh (supra) is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reasons that the provisions of DP Act 1961 were not subject matter of the dispute before the Court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh's case and thus, this Court did not take into consideration the provisions under Section 7 (3) of the DP Act.