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

Tag: DP Act 3(1) – Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime

S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 Jul 1996

Posted on June 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This a landmark judgment from a Division bench of the Supreme Court around section 2, 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.

Definition of Dowry and the offence of Demanding Dowry

The definition of the term ’dowry’ under Section 2 of the Act shows that any property or valuable security given or “agreed to be given” either directly or indirectly by one party to the marriage to the other party to the marriage “at or before or after the marriage” as a “consideration for the marriage of the said parties” would become ’dowry’ punishable under the Act. Property or valuable security so as to constitute ’dowry’ within the meaning of the Act must therefore be given or demanded “as consideration for the marriage”.

Section 4 of the Act aims at discouraging the very “demand” of “dowry” as a ’Consideration for the marriage’ between the parties thereto and lays down that if any person after the commencement of the Act, “demands”, directly or indirectly, from the parents or guardians of a ’bride’ or ’bridegroom’, as the case may be, any ’dowry’, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or with both.

Thus, it would be seen that section 4 makes punishable the very demand of property or valuable security as a consideration for marriage, which demand, if satisfied, would constitute the graver offence under section 3 of the Act punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry whichever is more.

The definition of the expression ’dowry’ contained in Section 2 of the Act cannot be confined merely to the ’demand’ of money, property or valuable security ’made at or after the performance of marriage’ as is urged by Mr. Rao. The legislature has in its wisdom while providing for the definition of ’dowry’ emphasised that any money, property or valuable security given, as a consideration for marriage, ’before, at or after the marriage would be covered by the expression ’dowry’ and this definition as contained in Section 2 has to be read wherever the expression ’dowry’ occurs in the Act. Meaning of the expression ’dowry’ as commonly used and understood is different than the peculiar definition thereof under the Act. Under Section 4 of the Act, mere demand of ’dowry’ is sufficient to bring home the offence to an accused. Thus, any “demand” of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-versa would fall within the mischief of ’dowry’ under the Act where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognised claim and is consideration of marriage. Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the “demand of dowry” leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. The expression ’dowry’ under the Act must be interpreted in the sense which the Statute wishes to attribute to it. Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel referred to various dictionaries for the meaning of ’dowry’, ’bride’ and ’bridegroom’ and on the basis of those meanings submitted that ’dowry’ must be construed only as such property, goods or valuable security which is given to a husband by and on behalf of the wife at marriage and any demand made prior to marriage would not amount to dowry. We cannot agree. Where definition has been given in a statute itself, it is neither proper nor desirable to look to the dictionaries etc. to find out the meaning of the expression. The definition given in the statute is the determinative- factor. The Act is a piece of social legislation which aims to check the growing menace of the social evil of dowry and it makes punishable not only the actual receiving of dowry but also the very demand of dowry made before or at the time or after the marriage where such demand is referable to the consideration of marriage. Dowry as a quid pro for marriage is prohibited and not the giving of traditional presents to the bride or the bride groom by friends and relatives. Thus, voluntary presents given at or before or after the marriage to the bride or the bridegroom, as the case may be, of a traditional nature, which are given not as a consideration for marriage but out of love, affection on regard, would not fall within the mischief of the expression ’dowry’ mare punishable under the Act.

On the point of Interpretation of Statutes

It is a well known rule of interpretation of statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a statute. The courts must look to the object which the statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the property or valuable security given at the time of marriage which would bring the same within the definition of ’dowry’ punishable under the Act, as such an interpretation would be defeating the very object for which the Act was enacted. Keeping in view the object of the Act, “demand of dowry” as a consideration for a proposed marriage would also come within the meaning of the expression dowry under the Act. If we were to agree with Mr. Rao that it is only the demand made at or after marriage which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act, Some serious consequences, which the legislature wanted to avoid, are bound to follow. Take for example a case where the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives make a ’demand’ of dowry during marriage negotiations and later on after bringing the bridal party to the bride’s house find that the bride or her parents or relative have not met the earlier ’demand’ and call off the marriage and leave the bride house should they escape the punishment under the Act. The answer has to be an emphatic ’no’. It would be adding insult to injury if we were to countenance that their action would not attract the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. Such an interpretation would frustrate the very object of the Act and would also run contrary to the accepted principles relating to the interpretation of statutes.

S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 11 Jul 1996

Citations : [1996 AD SC 5 229], [1996 AIR SC 2184], [1996 ALD CRI 2 926], [1996 ALT CRI 2 418], [1996 BLJR 2 1329], [1996 CRILJ 3237], [1996 CRIMES SC 3 35], [1997 DMC SC 2 100], [1996 JT SC 6 268], [1996 RCR CRIMINAL 3 153], [1996 SCALE 5 78], [1996 SCC 4 596], [1996 SUPP SCR 3 439], [1996 SCC CRI 792], [1996 OLR SC 2 229]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1213429/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace1e4b014971140fef2

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to DP Act 2 - Definition of Dowry DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 4 - Penalty for Demanding Dowry Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Reportable Judgement or Order S.Gopal Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011

Posted on June 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After failure at Delhi High Court here, Supreme Court dismissed the SLP summarily. Sad!

Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr on 07 March 2011
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr Sameer Saxena Vs State and Anr | Leave a comment

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing on the Pooja Saxena case here, Parents of women who were alleged to have committed the crime of giving dowry were let free.

Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 2130], [2016 DLT CN B 229 30]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134987777/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e42ee56109277ee48517

https://www.quickcompany.in/judgements/judgement-7b760d46-8b0b-48bd-9a45-794161ac3e2c

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows:

From Para 2,

2. Petitioner is an accused in C.C. No. 224/1995. Chinna Chowk Police laid a charge-sheet against him, his parents and three sisters for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”. A single charge under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act was framed against petitioner and A-2. After conclusion of trial and before judgment, the learned Magistrate framed separate charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act against petitioner and A-2 and recalled P.Ws. 1 to 3 and cross-examination them. During their cross-examination, P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitted that they had given Rs. 1 lakh as dowry and presented gold jewels worth Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner and his father. At that stage, petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 4073/1998 before the Trial Court under Section 319, Cr.P.C, to implead P.Ws. 1 to 4 as accused for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, to be tried along with the other accused in the case, since both the giver and taker of dowry are equally liable for punishment under the Act. The learned Magistrate dismissed that application against which petitioner filed Crl. R.P. No. 15/1999 before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision  holding that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be tried as accused in the same trial as they are protected under Section 7(3) of the Act. It is as against the order of dismissal of the revision, A-1 filed the present petitioner to quash the said order.

From Para 7,

7. A plain reading of the above provision would go to show that giving or taking of dowry as well as abetment of giving or taking of dowry is an offence punishable under the Act. On the basis of the statements made before the Court by P.Ws. 1 to 3 admitting that they gave dowry, can they be tried as accused in the same trial, is the question.

From Para 10,

10. If P.Ws. 1 to 4, who were examined as witnesses, are added as accused and arrayed in the list, of the accused persons, the proceedings in respect of them shall have to be commenced afresh and thewitnesses reheard. It means they have to give evidence against themselves, which is not permissible under law. Clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offenceshall be compelled to be a witness against himself. This protection is available to the person accused ofan offence not merely with respect to the evidence to be given in the Court-room in the course of trial butis also available to him at the previous stages, if an accusation has been made against him which might, in the normal course, result in his prosecution. It follows that the protection is available to a person againstwhom the formal accusation has been made though the actual trial may not have commenced as yet andif such an accusation relates to the commission of an offence which in the normal course may result in prosecution. In view of the above provisions, the witnesses cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4, cannot be arrayed as accused along with petitioner and others in the same proceedings. If the Court wants to proceed against the persons of giving dowry, then it has to resort to the provision under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7(1)(b) of the Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon its own knowledge, or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or a complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or other relative of such person or by any recognized welfare institution or organization.

Further Section 7(3) of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

Fundamental mistake in this case is, why police are NOT booking the Dowry givers asmushas Dowry takers in the FIR? Because in some States, Police circulars were issues precluding the Dowry givers from prosecution. So Police themselves decided that Dowry givers are not to be booked, which is totally contrary to what is said in Section 3(1).

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003

Citations: [2004 DMC 2 49], [2003 ALD 2 91], [2003 ALT CRI 2 253]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f83ce4b0149711141d5d

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91122848/

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases | Leave a comment

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice NN Tiwari had held as follows (without any legal basis):

From Para 6,

6. Learned Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the ground for assailing the impugned order by the petitioner is wholly misconceived and baseless. From the allegations made in the complaint, it is evident that the accused persons were demanding dowry and torturing the complainant for not bringing the dowry as desired by them. The petitioner is wrongly interpreting the presents given by the parents of the complainant, as dowry, which does not come within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Act. It has been submitted that nothing new has come in course of the inquiry or trial or there is nothing in the evidence on record to suggest that any such offence has been committed by the father of the complainant and learned Court below considering the provisions of law including the provisions of Section 7(3) of the Act has rightly rejected the petitioner’s petition.

From Para 10,

10. The petitioner has sought prosecution on the basis of the statement of giving dowry by the father of the complainant. From perusal of the statement made in the complaint, I find no such incriminating statement of voluntarily giving dowry for marriage. The statement regarding giving presents ‘UPHAR’ does not come within the ambit of definition of dowry. Moreover, the father of the complainant is an aggrieved person from whom dowry was being demanded. Such aggrieved person is protected under Section 7(3) from prosecution under the Act.

 

Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (LQ Ver)

Citations: [2008 SCC ONLINE JHAR 385], [2009 AIR JHAR R 1 856], [2009 CRI LJ NOC 614 159], [2009 JLJR 1 432]

Other Source links:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea832d607dba377ff107fd

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Ram-Gopal-Sah-Versus-State-Of-Jharkhand-2008-12-03

Posted in High Court of Jharkhand Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand | Leave a comment

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am (along with my parents!) one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.

So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.

Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.

Key Point

Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?

 

Arguments – Counter Arguments

 

Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.

 

Prayer

Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance

Alternatively, strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent

Either-way, I win!

Full prayers from the Writ Petitions:


All the cited case laws are listed here.

  • Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003 (AP HC)
  • Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (Jharkhand HC)
  • Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 (Delhi HC)
  • Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012 (Delhi HC)
  • Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012 (AP HC)
  • Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013 (Kar HC)
  • Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016 (Del HC)

ACTION STARTS:

WP (in the name of my parents, and not in my name) is filed on 14-09-2021. WP No. 20594 of 2021 (WPSR 27260/2021). Here is the affidavit.

Writ Petition seeking direction against misinterpretation of Sec 7(3) of DP Act 1961 3.5 ONLY AFFIDAVIT

Case Details


Filed a memo with additional information on 17-09-2021:

MEMO for Extra Info

Order Passed on 20-09-2021

Initial hearing before admission on 20-09-2021. Notices issued to the Respondents. Government Advocates take notice and sought 4 weeks time to file Counters.

Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 20 Sep 2021

 Next Date of Hearing : 13-12-2021

  1. The case was transferred from Court-14 to Court-1, since there is a question of law involved.
  2. It is almost 90 days from the date of issue of notices to Government advocates but I am still waiting for the Counters to be filed by them. I suspect, they will continue to seek additional time. Let’s see how this gamble goes on…

Since the petitioner is questioning the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Registry is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per roster.

2 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 13 Dec 2021

 Next Date of Hearing : 16-12-2021

  1. My Advocate took two weeks time.

On the request made by Ms. Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioners, post this case after two weeks.

3 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 16 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 30-12-2021

Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court-1 took up only part of the Causelist and rest of the cases, including mine, was not listed. No future date known.


Next Date of Hearing : 13-06-2022

Since 4 months, not a single listing was possible. Frankly, not asked/mentioned/represented appropriately by the advocate. Will wait out the Vacation period for High Court and then get the advocate changed to… myself. Hence filed the NOC obtained from previous advocate and my vakalat. (Expense: Rs.300/-)


Next Date of Hearing : 14-06-2022

I am the new Advocate for this Writ Petition.

Updated on eCourts Website…

‘

Updated on eCourts app…

 

Updated on AP High Court Case Status website…


Next Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready. Gathered up courage (my first time facing a High Court judge, that too Chief Justice!) and stepped up to the mike. Cleared my throat and uttered few words.

—————————————
Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021.
CJ: What is the urgency?
Me: The matter was not listed after Dec 2021.
CJ: We have around 2.5 lakh cases pending, some for much more time than that. (Don’t know if he is proud/sad about this). Again what is the urgency?
Me: The matter pertains to critical question of law regarding Dowry Prohibition Act
CJ: No urgency. Mention rejected.
—————————————
What do I do next?

Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

Going to take a different plea for urgency.

– Court-14 issues Notices to the Respondents on 08-09-2021.
– Government Advocates take the notice and seek 4 weeks time to file Counters on same day.
– Court-14 transfers the Writ Petition to Court-1 since there is a question on the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 on 13-12-2021.
– Lapse of 120 days on 06-01-2022
(as per amended Rules 12(i)(a) and 12(ii) of AP HC Writ Proceeding Rules 1977)
-[12(i)(a) Every Respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent”.]
-[12(ii) “No counter affidavit filed beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party or parties in the Writ Petition shall be received or be used at the hearing of the Writ Petition unless the Court grants leave to file counter affidavit beyond the stipulated period, subject to such terms as the Court may deem fit.”]
– Till date none of the Respondents filed any Counter so I can submit to Court-1 to strike out the defence of the Respondents and pass orders  in the Writ, as the Hon’ble Court finds appropriate.
  • Union of India
  • State of Andhra Pradesh
  • Director General of Police
  • Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Ongole

On Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready.

—————————————
Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021 and Notices were issued also.
CJ: What is the urgency?
Me: The respondents have not filed any Counter Affidavits till date. As per Writ Rules, only 120 days time is given to respondents to file their Counter Affidavits but in this case already 320 days elapsed.
CJ: If we go by Rules, I will have to dismiss many petitions. May be in future, you will be respondent. What to do then? (Don’t know how Petition can be dismissed for fault of Respondent?). Again what is the urgency?
Me: (silent)
After lunch time, I get to know that my Court Slip/Mentioning was rejected by CJ. Again.
—————————————
Here is the rejected Court slip.
What do I do next? God knows!

Next Date of Hearing : 05-08-2022

Since I was not in a habit of checking the listing of my cases (officially just two; for one, CJ doesn’t see urgency, for another, File not available at AP HC), I totally missed to appear before the Court in which this case got listed miraculously. Also since it was my 40th birthday, I had reached my home town in the morning of 5th August.

See the time at which I received the SMSs (I got them after the business of the Court ended)

[Note: Filed RTI application to AP HC, asking for the number of Writs for which Counter was NOT filed within 120 days. Interesting reply awaited!]

2022-08-05 Listing of 20594 of 2021

Here is the order passed. Not sure if Counter is filed by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India)

4 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 05 Aug 2022

Next Date of Hearing : 30-09-2022

 


…

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K C Bhanu from AP High Court has held as follows in one of the shortest and cleanest Judgments I have read:

From Para 5,

5. Under Section 3 of the Act if any person, after the commencement of this Act gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable. It does not contemplate a demand or coercion or threat made by one person to another for the purpose of giving or taking dowry. Therefore, this provision makes it clear that giving or taking of dowry by any person is an offence. But Section 7(3) of the Act reads that  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. Therefore, Section 3 of the Act is controlled by cl. (3) of Section 7 of the Act. Ordinarily, the person  aggrieved by the offence is the person directly affected or injured. The person aggrieved by the offence is the accused in C.C.No.95 of 2010 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, but not the complainant or the witnesses. Therefore, statement made by a person aggrieved by the offence is any one of the accused, but not the complainant. Hence, Section 7 (3) of the Act has no application to the present facts of the case. In this view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012

Citations:

Other Source links:

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Justice K C Bhanu Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted | Leave a comment

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Delhi High Court judgment where a certain conclusion is made without basis. Just an earlier judgment is cited as support even that one lacks justification. Funny.

From Para 8,

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.

From Para 9,

9. Further there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner being the father of the victim girl was not an
“aggrieved person”. Section 7(3) of the DP Act bars cognizance of a complaint against the person aggrieved by the offence. It cannot be said that only “aggrieved person” would be the victim girl. Even the father of the victim girl, who was made to give dowry, would be an aggrieved person. Similar view has been taken in Ram Gopal Sah v. State of Jharkhand, II (2009) DMC 844.

No one explains how/why should the Dowry giving criminals (as per Sec 3(1) should be protected from prosecution along with their daughter, who can be considered an aggrieved person!!!

 

Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012

Citations: [2012 AD DEL 3 186], [2012 DMC 2 134], [2012 SCC ONLINE DEL 1261]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160230226/

https://www.legitquest.com/case/yashpal-kumar-v-bhola-nath-khanna-another/73202

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090e75e4b014971117c483


 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr | Leave a comment

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Read through the Para 11 of this Delhi High Judgment to learn how NOT to draw conclusions from thin air u/s 482 CrPC proceedings.

11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Crux of the failed justice: Clearly from the highlighted portion of the judgment itself, one can understand the conclusion arrived by the Judge is based on the unproved allegations in the complaint which got carried as-is to the FIR. This also goes to show that the Judge has pre-judged that the allegations were true despite the fact that said allegation of demand for dowry is to be punished under Section 4 of DP Act 1961 and this being a Criminal Statute required such allegations to be proven in a Criminal Court trial with evidence. This was given a total bypass possibly in an successful attempt of harmonious interpretation but alas totally contrary to the legislature intent which being that Dowry givers are to be punished. Despite writing that Sec 7(3) gives protection only to the aggrieved person (who made the complaint) her parents are also extended protection from prosecution, which is squarely ultravires to provision, statute and legislature intent and most importantly to Principles of natural justice. Precluding the criminal who allegedly committed the crime of giving dowry even before such fact is proved in a Court trial is travesty of justice.

 

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Citations: [2011 CRIMES 1 378], [2010 JCC 4 2780], [2011 AD DEL 1 359], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 3652]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61656909/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d12e4b0149711178c8d


Further story here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 Jul 2009 January 26, 2023
  • Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 January 24, 2023
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 January 19, 2023
  • Messers S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Mar 2004 January 17, 2023
  • Ramjas Foundation and Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 9 Nov 2010 January 17, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act? (9,055 views)
  • XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022 (2,815 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (873 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (849 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (822 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (716 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (674 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (674 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (588 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (558 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (323)Reportable Judgement or Order (319)Landmark Case (310)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (259)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (210)1-Judge Bench Decision (145)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (79)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (74)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (52)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (34)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (629)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (297)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (40)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (39)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • Ravi on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • 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 (29)
  • 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 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Maintenance impacting SSL API availability and certificate issuance February 14, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 14, 14:00 - 16:00 UTCJan 26, 10:38 UTCScheduled - On February 14th, 2023, Cloudflare will be doing database maintenance that will impact SSL API availability and may result in certificate issuance delays. The scheduled maintenance will be on February 14, 2023, 14:00 - 16:00 UTC.During the maintenance window, SSL-related […]
  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-02-07 February 7, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 7, 01:30 - 03:30 UTCFeb 2, 06:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-02-07 between 01:30 and 03:30 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 […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-06 February 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 6, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 1, 06:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-06 between 17:00 and 23:00 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 192.142.21.117 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 408 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 192.142.21.82 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 212 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 103.20.11.159 | SD February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,199 | First: 2017-01-12 | Last: 2023-02-01
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 466 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel