Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Section 5 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Inder Sain And Another vs The State on 22 May, 1981
6. Every offence under this Act shall be non-
cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable."
According to the appellant's complaint, when the
marriage of his daughter Anita and the second respondent,
the son of the first respondent, was in progress on
19.6.1979, both the respondents demanded from him cash of
Rs. 50, 000 in the presence of respectable persons under the
pretext that the amount was required for the passage or
transport of Anita and the second respondent to the United
States where the second respondent was employed at that time
and they told him that if he did dot comply with their
demand by way of dowry further ceremonies in the marriage
would not be completed. It is further alleged that some
respectable persons who were present at that time persuaded
the respondents to complete the marriage ceremonies and
formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were
completed and that subsequently the second respondent went
to the United States in July 1979 alone because the passport
and visa of Anita had to be arranged which was done some
time later while Anita was staying in the house of the first
respondent, and the respondents continued to persist in
their demand for the money when Anita was saying in the
house of the first respondent without being sent to the
United States. Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, appearing
for the respondents invited our attention to the decision of
a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Inder Sain
and another v. The State(1) and also of another Single Judge
of the Patna High Court in Kashi Prasad and others v. State
of Bihar and others(2) and submitted that the demand for Rs.
50,000 alleged in the complaint would not constitute an
offence under s. 4 of the Act as there is no allegation in
tile complaint that the appellant consented to pay the
amount and that without consent to the payment the sum of
Rs. 50,000 alleged to have been demanded does not become
dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act which defines
"dowry" as meaning "any property or valuable security given
or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 30 July, 1981
6. Every offence under this Act shall be non-
cognizable, bailable and non-compoundable."
According to the appellant's complaint, when the
marriage of his daughter Anita and the second respondent,
the son of the first respondent, was in progress on
19.6.1979, both the respondents demanded from him cash of
Rs. 50, 000 in the presence of respectable persons under the
pretext that the amount was required for the passage or
transport of Anita and the second respondent to the United
States where the second respondent was employed at that time
and they told him that if he did dot comply with their
demand by way of dowry further ceremonies in the marriage
would not be completed. It is further alleged that some
respectable persons who were present at that time persuaded
the respondents to complete the marriage ceremonies and
formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were
completed and that subsequently the second respondent went
to the United States in July 1979 alone because the passport
and visa of Anita had to be arranged which was done some
time later while Anita was staying in the house of the first
respondent, and the respondents continued to persist in
their demand for the money when Anita was saying in the
house of the first respondent without being sent to the
United States. Mr. V. S. Desai, Senior Advocate, appearing
for the respondents invited our attention to the decision of
a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Inder Sain
and another v. The State(1) and also of another Single Judge
of the Patna High Court in Kashi Prasad and others v. State
of Bihar and others(2) and submitted that the demand for Rs.
50,000 alleged in the complaint would not constitute an
offence under s. 4 of the Act as there is no allegation in
tile complaint that the appellant consented to pay the
amount and that without consent to the payment the sum of
Rs. 50,000 alleged to have been demanded does not become
dowry within the meaning of s. 2 of the Act which defines
"dowry" as meaning "any property or valuable security given
or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
Daulat Mansingh Aher vs C.R. Bansi And Another on 22 February, 1980
We are concerned in the present case with a complaint
in which it has been alleged that the demand for the sum of
Rs. 50,000 as dowry was made when the marriage ceremonies
between the appellant's daughter Anita and the second
respondent were in progress, by both the respondents. under
the pretext that it was required for the passage of the
parties to the marriage to the United States with a threat
that if the amount was not paid the marriage ceremonies
would not be completed and that there was demand for payment
of the amount even after the marriage ceremonies were over
when Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent
after the second respondent went away alone to the United
States because the, passport
769
and visa for Anita had not been obtained by then. The
decision of even the Patna High Court relied upon by Mr.
Desai relates only to what constitutes "consideration" for
the marriage within the meaning of s 2 of the Act. On the
other hand, Dr; Y.S. Chitale, Senior Advocate, appearing for
the appellant invited our attention to a decision of a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Daulat Mansingh
Aher v. C.R. Bansi and another(1) and submitted that a mere
demand for money as dowry for completing the marriage
ceremonies on pain of not completing the ceremonies if the
money was not given is sufficient to constitute an offence
under s. 4 of the Act even though there was no consent on
the part of the appellant to comply with that demand. What
appeared from the record of the case out of which the
decision of the Bombay High Court arose, was that the
accused-petitioner filed an application on 6.10.1978 raising
a contention that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dadar, Bombay had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the
case because the accused and the complainant were residing
'outside the jurisdiction of that Court. A contention was
also raised that the complaint was barred by limitation and
was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, during the
arguments in the High Court it was conceded by the learned
counsel for the accused-petitioner that the complaint was
filed within the period prescribed. Therefore, the only
question that arose for consideration by the learned Judges
of the Division Bench was the one relating to the
jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dadar, Bombay
to entertain and inquire into the complaint. However, the
learned Judges have observed in the judgment after
extracting s. 4 of the Act that "what is made punishable
under that provision is the demand itself, whether direct or
indirect, from the parents of a bride or bridegroom". The
learned Judges have further observed thus:-
1