web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, Irrespective of when a demand was made, either during/before marriage or subsequent to marriage, section 4 offence is made out.

From Para 7,

Having regard to the dominant object of the Act which is to stamp out the practice of demanding dowry in any shape or form either before or after the marriage. The entire definition of the word ‘dowry’ should not be imported into Section 4 and a liberal construction has to be given to the word ‘dowry’ used in Section 4 to mean that any property or valuable security which if consented to be given on the demand being made would become dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Act. The object of Section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under Section 3 read with Section 2 of the Act. There is no warrant for taking the view that the initial demand for giving of property or valuable security would not constitute an offence and that an offence would take place only when the demand was made again after the party on whom the demand was made agreed to comply with it.

Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001

Citations: [2001 CriLJ 2792]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/737573/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A key element necessary to go for Discharge petition is the following:

That prosecution should refer to existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. If this is missing, you have good chance of winning your Discharge Petition.

With reference to the absence of allegations under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, it is submitted whether the charge sheet has reference to any particular material referred to in it and the relevance of it is to be considered at the time when the charge is framed. It would not be desirable to analyse minutely the materials as at that stage the Court is primarily concerned with the question as to whether charge is to be framed in respect of any offence and whether there prima facie appears existence of any material and not the sufficiency of the materials. Therefore, the appellants’ stand that the charge sheet does not refer to any particular material cannot be accepted, more particularly, in view of the specific materials referred to by learned counsel for the respondent-State.

Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 6 December 2006

Citations: [2007 JT 1 89], [2006 CRIMES SC 4 388], [2007 AIR SC 1276], [2007 AIR SC 1415], [2007 SCC CRI 1 193], [2007 SCC 1 1], [2006 SCR SUPP 10 197], [2006 SUPREME 8 964], [2006 SCALE 13 54], [2007 AIR SC 1274], [2007 AIC SC 51 623]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1634320/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae36e4b014971141330e


Index of Discharge/Quash case laws here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 197 - Prosecution of Judges and public servants Parkash Singh Badal and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors | Leave a comment

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of AP has held in this Anticipatory Bail application, to be a falsely implicated case against petitioners. Certain guidelines were passed.

It is most unfortunate that the de facto complainant has implicated her in laws, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, parents of the mother-in-law and their relatives, two more sisters of her husband and their husbands who are residing in foreign countries. A reading of the complaint gives an impression that the de facto complainant has implicated almost all the relatives of her husband and their other close relatives who are visiting her husbands house. This is most unfortunate situation. This type of complaint gives an impression that Section 498-A is being misused to harass not only the husband of the de facto complainant but all his relatives. It is alleged that in order to force the husband to come to their terms or in order to meet their huge demands, this kind of complaints are being given. How difficult it would be for those persons staying in Australia, Jeddah or USA to come over to India and face the criminal case and prove their innocence.

Truth or otherwise of the allegations cannot be decided unless fair and dispassionate investigation is completed. Sometimes, after full-fledged trial only, truth may come out. There cannot be any doubt to say that there is dowry menace in the society. But, at the same time, it is also a fact that certain marriages are performed without any dowry. Due to ill-advice or under a wrong impression that if a complaint is lodged under section 498-A IPC, the husband may come to terms, complaints are being lodged with the police. When differences arise, there should be proper counselling before and after marriage. It is quite natural that husband and wife would have faced different circumstances and environment from their childhood resulting in gaining different impressions and opinions and therefore they may have difference of opinion on life style and on several other issues. Therefore, issues have to be resolved by trying to understand one another, particularly, when the parties have children, special care has to be taken to protect the interest of the children. The welfare of the children should be given utmost importance. Therefore, proper counselling at initial stage would help the parties. It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.

Here are the guidelines.

It appears that there is every need to give similar directions in Andhra Pradesh. Under Domestic Violence Act, protection officer is required to assist the police and the Court. Section 14 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 envisages that the Magistrate may, at any stage of the proceedings under this Act, direct the respondents or the aggrieved person either singly or jointly to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who posses such qualification and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-compoundable offence.
In the light of the above discussion, the following guidelines have been issued.
a) A fair and dispassionate investigation should be conducted. After completing investigation, the same should be verified by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
b) During the course of investigation, if the investigating officer is satisfied that there is false implication of any person in the complaint then he may delete the names of such persons from the charge sheet after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police or any other officer equivalent to that rank.
c) As soon as a complaint is received either from the wife alleging dowry harassment or from the husband that there is every likelihood of him being implicated in a case of dowry harassment, then, both the parties should be asked to undergo counselling with any experienced counsellor or counsellors. The report of such counsellors should be made as a part of the report to be submitted by the investigating officer to the Court.
d) The Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, may prepare a panel of counsellors and such panel of counsellors along with their address and phone numbers should be made available at all the police stations.
e) Normally, no accused should be arrested, where the allegation is simple dowry harassment. If the arrest is necessary during the course of investigation, the investigating officer should obtain permission of the Superintendent of Police or any other officer of the equal rank in metropolitan cities. If arrest is not necessary, the police may complete the investigation and lay charge sheet before the Court without arresting the accused and seek necessary orders from the Court. However, in the case of dowry death, suspicious death, suicide or where the allegations are serious in nature such as inflicting of bodily injury etc., the police officer may arrest the accused. However, the intimation of such arrest should be immediately sent to the concerned Superintendent of Police who may give necessary guidance to the arresting officer.
f) No accused or witness should be unnecessarily called to the police station and as soon as the purpose of summoning them to the police station is over they should be sent back. There should not be any unnecessary harassment to any person i.e. either to the relatives of the de facto complainant or to the relatives of the husband.
g) The higher police officers should see that the parties do not make any allegations that they are forced to come to any settlement in police stations against their wish. However, this does not mean that the police officers should not make any effort for amicable settlement.
h) The advocates have to play their role in trying to unite the families. They must act as social reformers while dealing with these kind of cases, particularly, where the couple have children. Even when an accused is produced before the Magistrate, they should examine the matter judiciously and consider whether there are valid grounds for remanding the accused to the judicial custody. No accused should be remanded to judicial custody mechanically in routine manner. If the Magistrate feels that the accused cannot be released after taking bonds, necessary orders may be passed accordingly.

The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, is requested to issue necessary instructions to all the concerned in this regard.

 

Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP on 17 January 2014

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122766842/

It is most unfortunate that Section 498-A IPC has become a weapon in breaking the families rather than in uniting them.


This is followed in AP High Court judgment here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Kans Raj Vs State of Punjab and Ors Legal Terrorism Preeti Gupta and Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Tahmeena Kaleem and Ors Vs State of AP | Leave a comment

Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my site, Shades of Knife.

Delivery of Justice

  • All Bare Acts of India here.
  • All Life Cycles of various cases here.
  • All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
  • All Dowry related case laws here.
  • All Dowry Harassment Judgments under Section 498A of IPC here.
  • All Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC here.
  • All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
  • All Bail Matters here.
  • All Condone Delay Judgments here.
  • All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
  • All Passport Judgments here.
  • All Police Clearance Certificate Judgments here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
  • All Defamation Judgments here.
  • All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
  • All Divorce Judgments here.
  • All Maintenance Judgments here.
  • All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
  • All Perjury Judgments here.
  • All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
  • All Transfer Petition Judgments here.
  • All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
  • All Contempt of Court Judgments here.
  • All Legal templates and Drafting here.
  • All Antics of Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils here.

 

 

Administration of Justice:

  • All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
  • All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
  • All publicly available legal research tools here.
  • All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
  • Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
  • eCourts Project
  • AI-based Legalbots
  • Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India here.
  • Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.
  • All Legal strategies and Defence here.
  • All Law Concepts explained here. 

 

Personal Interest

  • All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
  • All Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India here.
  • All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.

 

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | 2 Comments

Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments

Posted on July 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.

  1. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989 [SC:Cruelty should be such that, as to make woman commit harm to herself]
  2. Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 [CalHC: Agreement is prerequisite for Sec 4 conviction]
  3. Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992 [BomHC: Any property demanded not in connection of marriage is not dowry]
  4. Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993 [SC: Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not unconstitutional]
  5. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001 [Presumption does not let Prosecution free from establishing their case before burden of proof shifts to accused]
  6. Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001 [BomHC: Dowry demand is made out anytime before, during or after marriage, as long it is in connection with marriage]
  7. State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009 [SC: Giving dowry under demand is a crime u/s 3 of DP Act read with Sec 2 of the DP Act]
  8. Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
  9. Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011 [KarHC: Relies on this case here]
  10. Uma Devi Vs State and Anr on 01 Aug 2011 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
  11. Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 (Overruled)
  12. Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013 [MadHC: Relies on SC decision State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors here]
  13. Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out]
  14. Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015 [Dowry not proved in a DV Case]
  15. Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Landmark: Demand for dowry in connection with marriage]
  16. Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016 []
  17. Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016 [Dowry element is time-barred due to AP DP Rules 1998]
  18. Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016 []
  19. Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 [Invoked AP DP Rules 1998]
  20. Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018 [Gifts are not Dowry]
  21. M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Dowry should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage]
  22. Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 [SC : Vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.]

 

Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc

Dowry Prohibition Act here.

State-enacted Rules are here.

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Frequently Asked Questions – Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) Jurisprudence in India

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.

Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.

In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:

  • Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
  • Section 304B IPC – Dowry death
  • Section 34 IPC – Common intention

These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.

Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.

Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.

Punishment varies depending on the severity:

  • Simple dowry demand may attract imprisonment and a fine.
  • In cases of dowry death (death within 7 years of marriage due to dowry harassment), enhanced punishment under Section 304B IPC is applied.
    Courts have often noted that dowry offences are serious and socially harmful, justifying strict penalties.

Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.

Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.

Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.

Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:

  • Death occurs within 7 years of marriage,
  • There is proof of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demand,
  • The conduct of the accused suggests involvement.
    Courts have clarified that even in the absence of direct evidence, consistent and cogent circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction.

Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.

Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that the burden of proof even in a 304B Dowry death case initially lies on prosecution only and shifts to accused, only after prosecution establishes their case.

 

Under Section 4 of the Evidence Act whenever it is directed by this Act that the Court shall presume the fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless and until it is disproved. So the court has no option but to presume that the accused had caused dowry death unless the accused disproves it. It is a statutory compulsion on the court. However it is open to the accused to adduce such evidence for disproving the said compulsory presumption, as the
burden is unmistakably on him to do so. He can discharge such burden either by eliciting answers through cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution or by adducing evidence on the defence side or by both.

And then,

But the peculiar situation in respect of an offence under Section 304B IPC, as discernible from the distinction pointed out above in respect of the offence under Section 306 IPC is this: Under the former the court has a statutory compulsion, merely on the establishment of two factual positions enumerated above, to presume that the accused has committed dowry death. If any accused wants to escape from the said catch the burden is on him to disprove it. If he fails to rebut the presumption the court is bound to act on it.

Now take the case of an accused who was called upon to defend only a charge under Section 302 IPC. The burden of proof never shifts on to him. It ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The said traditional legal concept remains unchanged even now. In such a case the accused can wait till the prosecution evidence is over and then to show that the prosecution has failed to make out the said offence against him. No compulsory presumption would go to the assistance of the prosecution in such a situation. If that be so, when an accused has no notice of the offence under Section 304B IPC, as he was defending a charge under Section 302 IPC alone, would it not lead to a grave miscarriage of justice when he is alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC and sentenced to the serious punishment prescribed thereunder, which mandates a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven years.

The serious consequence which may ensue to the accused in such a situation can be limned through an illustration:-
If a bride was murdered within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence to show that either on the previous day or a couple of days earlier she was subjected to harassment by her husband with demand for dowry, such husband would be guilty of the offence on the language of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder of his wife was actually committed either by a decoit or by a militant in a terrorist act the husband can lead evidence to show that he had no hand in her death at all. If he succeeds in discharging the burden of proof he is not liable to be convicted under Section 304B, IPC. But if the husband is charged only under Section 302 IPC he has no burden to prove that his wife was murdered like that as he can have his traditional defence that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and claim an order of acquittal. The above illustration would amplify the gravity of the consequence befalling an accused if he was only asked to defend a charge under Section 302 IPC and was alternatively convicted under Section 304B IPC without any notice to him, because he is deprived of the opportunity to disprove the burden cast on him by law.

 

In such a situation, if the trial court finds that the prosecution has failed to make out the case under Section 302 IPC, but the offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out, the court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence. Without affording such an opportunity to the accused, a conviction under Section 304-B IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice. Even if no such count was included in the charge, when the court affords him an opportunity to discharge his burden by putting him to notice regarding the prima facie view of the court that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304B IPC, unless he succeeds in disproving the presumption, it is possible for the court to enter upon a conviction of the said offence in the event of his failure to disprove the presumption.

 

Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001

 


Citations: [

Other Source links:


All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Burden of Proof shifts to Accused after initial burden has been discharged by the prosecution DP Act 8A - Burden of proof in certain cases Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka | Leave a comment

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is overruled by Rajinder Singh here.

Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013

Citations: [2013 AIR SC 1567], [2013 ALT CRI 2 457], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 225], [2013 OLR 2 130], [2013 JT 4 188], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 AIOL 160], [2013 GLR 3 2510], [2013 CRILJ 2095], [2013 AKR 2 339], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 2 342], [2013 CLT 116 563], [2013 ALD CRI 1 967], [2013 SCALE 3 525], [2013 SUPREME 2 485], [2013 AIC 125 194], [2013 CUTLT 116 563], [2013 PLJR 3 91], [2013 SCC 3 684], [2013 JCC 2 1330], [2013 DMC 1 700], [2013 SLT 2 767], [2013 BLJ 3 531], [2013 SCC CRI 2 15], [2013 SCR 3 449], [2013 ALLCC 82 61], [2013 AD SC 4 275], [2013 CRIMES SC 3 229], [2013 GUJLR 3 2510], [2013 CRLJ SC 2095]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/167568223/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c1b


All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 – Money Demand Not In Connection Of Marriage Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Overruled Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. | Leave a comment

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court in this case, held that the demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out.

From Para 16,

This Court held that demand made for purchasing a computer, six months after the marriage, was not a demand in connection with marriage and was not a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case. Explanation to Section 304B of the IPC states that for the purpose of this sub-section, dowry shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, so far as it is material to this case, states that dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage at or before or at any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said party. Thus, the emphasis is on property or valuable security given ‘at or before’ or ‘at any time after’ the marriage in connection with marriage. The amount or things demanded must, therefore, have a nexus with the marriage. In this case both the brothers i.e. PW-6 Satish Kumar and PW-7 Ashok Kumar, brothers of the deceased, have clearly stated that the accused were unhappy by the quality and quantity of the dowry and the deceased was being taunted and beaten-up for that. The words ‘insufficient and inferior quality of dowry’ are important. They indicate that the transaction of giving dowry was not complete. Sufficient quantity of dowry was not given and that transaction was sought to be completed by asking for Rs.60,000/- after the marriage for the business of the appellant. This demand has a connection with the marriage. Therefore, in our opinion Vipin Jaiswal is not applicable to the present case.

Doling out gyan in Para 25,

25. Before closing, the most commonplace argument must be dealt with. In all cases of bride burning it is submitted that independent witnesses have not been examined. When harassment and cruelty is meted out to a woman within the four walls of the matrimonial home, it is difficult to get independent witnesses to depose about it. Only the inmates of the house and the relatives of the husband, who cause the cruelty, witness it. Their servants, being under their obligation, would never depose against them. Proverbially, neighbours are slippery witnesses. Moreover, witnesses have a tendency to stay away from courts. This is more so with neighbours. In bride burning cases who else will, therefore, depose about the misery of the deceased bride except her parents or her relatives? It is time we accept this reality. We, therefore, reject this submission.

Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013

Citations: [2014 SUPREME 2 553], [2013 JT SC 15 9], [2014 ECRN 1 875], [2014 AIR SC 817], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 1009], [2014 SLT 3 24], [2013 AIOL 748], [2014 SCJ 1 701], [2014 CRIMES SC 1 355], [2014 CUTLT SUPPL 438], [2014 SCC CRI 4 769], [2014 SCC 4 129], [2013 SCC 10 691], [2014 CRI LJ 561], [2014 DMC SC 1 722], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 687], [2013 SCALE 13 691], [2014 CCR SC 1 671], [2014 ALT CRI 2 261], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL 1 535], [2014 AIC 133 174], [2014 AIR BOM R CRI 1 208], [2014 ALLCC 84 371], [2014 ALD CRI 1 687], [2013 AIR SC 6741]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10522469/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ee4b0149711415bdb


All Dowry related case laws are in this Index here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Proved DP Act 4 – Partial Demanded Money Paid In Connection Of Marriage Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana | Leave a comment

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Nice judgment from Telangana High Court which held as follows:

38. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that by virtue of amendment vide Act No.63 of 1984 w.e.f. 02.10.1985, the words “in connection with the marriage of the said parties” are added and, therefore, the alleged demand of dowry should be in connection with the marriage of the said parties. Section 4 of the Act, 1961 also deals with “penalty for demanding dowry’. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no demand of dowry in connection with the marriage of the parties viz., deceased and accused No.1.

39. As discussed supra, the entire complaint lodged by PW.1 against the accused is that the accused have demanded additional dowry, more particularly, the dowry, which was given to the second daughter of PW.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1998 i.e., six years after the marriage of the deceased. Even the said alleged demand of additional dowry at the time of marriage of second daughter of PW.1 is also not proved with cogent evidence.

40. It is relevant to note that the definition of ‘dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act, 1961 mere demand thereof would not be an offence under Section 4 of the Act, 1961. It should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage. Although in common parlance one very often uses the term “dowry demand” in the cases where the husband or his relations demand valuable security from the parents and other relations of the wife after the marriage, yet this will not amount to demand for dowry under the Act, 1961 in view of the definition of dowry contained in Section 2 of the Act, 1961.

M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198304502/

dowry demand has to be in relation to marriage

 

Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 2 - Definition of Dowry DP Act 4 - Dowry be given or agreed to be given DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP | Leave a comment

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Posted on July 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that when proceeding against parents were quashed on the ground that Magistrate had taken cognizance after three years, husband also gets same benefit.

Although, the learned Single Judge of High Court dealt with various points raised by the appellants and negatived the same by recording the detailed order, his attention does not appear to have been drawn to the order dated 24.10.2006 passed by the co-ordinate bench in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003 whereby the proceedings of CC No.240/2002 were quashed qua the parents of the appellants on the ground that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance after three years. Respondent No.2 is not shown to have challenged the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003. Therefore, that order will be deemed to have become final. We are sure that if attention of the learned Single Judge, who decided Criminal Petition No.4152/2006 had been drawn to the order passed by another learned Single Judge in Criminal Petition No.1302/2003, he may have, by taking note of the fact that the learned Magistrate did not pass an order for condonation of delay or extension of the period of limitation in terms of Section 473 Cr.P.C., quashed the proceedings of CC No.240/2002.

 

Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr on 13 December 2007

Citations: [2007 AIOL 1286], [2007 SCALE 14 321], [2007 SCC 13 165], [2008 CRLJ SC 1375], [2007 SCR 13 478], [2009 SCC CRI 1 170], [2008 AIR SC 787], [2008 AIC SC 61 102], [2008 CRILJ 1375]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1494950/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135cd


Earlier judgment of AP High Court is available here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 468 - Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation CrPC 482 - Quash CrPC 482 - Quashed Due To Time Barred Cognizance CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Sanapareddy Maheedhar and Anr Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ncbn

N Chandrababu Naidu

Verified account @ncbn ·
2 Oct

A heartfelt thank you to Anant Ambani Ji for coming forward to establish the Indian School of Agriculture in Rayalaseema, Andhra Pradesh.

Your commitment to empowering our farmers, strengthening agriculture and transforming Rayalaseema into a global horticulture hub is deeply

Reply on Twitter 2105992083903553676 Retweet on Twitter 2105992083903553676 1202 Like on Twitter 2105992083903553676 12388 X 2105992083903553676
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
m9news_

M9 NEWS

Verified account @m9news_ ·
2 Oct

నన్ను "ఆంధ్ర బిడ్డ"గా భావించండి!

Chandrababu Naidu garu.. Andhra Pradesh కోసం నేను ఏం చేయాలో చెప్పండి

- #AnantAmbani @ncbn

Reply on Twitter 2105911996160077995 Retweet on Twitter 2105911996160077995 1683 Like on Twitter 2105911996160077995 13030 X 2105911996160077995
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
telugu360

Telugu360

Verified account @telugu360 ·
2 Oct

నన్ను ఆంధ్ర బిడ్డగా భావించండి: అనంత్ అంబానీ

“Chandrababu Naidu Garu, today, I request you to treat me as a son of Andhra and direct me on how I can contribute to your beautiful state.”

#AnanthAmbani #Chandrababu

Reply on Twitter 2105912917908676893 Retweet on Twitter 2105912917908676893 1565 Like on Twitter 2105912917908676893 18868 X 2105912917908676893
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
iloveindia_007

I Love India ✌️

Verified account @iloveindia_007 ·
2 Oct

వెళ్ళోస్తాను బాబుగారు,ఆశీర్వదించండి🙏🙏....
సభ మొదలైన దగ్గర నుంచి వీడ్కోలు సమయం వరకు దాదాపు రెండున్నర గంటలు పైగా బాబుగారితో కలుపుకోలుగా,మర్యాదపూర్వకంగా మసలుకుంటూ ఆహూతులందరి మనస్సులు గెలిచిన"అనంత్ అంబానీ"గారు🥰🥰

Reply on Twitter 2106000399140532673 Retweet on Twitter 2106000399140532673 197 Like on Twitter 2106000399140532673 1603 X 2106000399140532673

Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance September 29, 2026
  • Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 September 24, 2026
  • Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh September 24, 2026
  • Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026 September 24, 2026
  • Md. Mashood and Ors Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Feb 2026 September 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (2,101 views)
  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,572 views)
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,184 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,071 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (945 views)
  • Myth vs Reality: Bail in 498A Cases – Legal Position Explained (931 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (889 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (875 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (808 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (770 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (446)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (431)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (387)1-Judge Bench Decision (376)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (302)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (767)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (190)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (85)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (54)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy

Archives of SoK

  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • DEL (New Delhi) on 2026-10-29 October 29, 2026
    Sep 17, 17:11 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in DEL (New Delhi) datacenter between 2026-10-29 21:00 and 2026-10-30 01:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.185.160.147 | SD October 5, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 19 | First: 2026-08-02 | Last: 2026-10-05
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2503 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel