Madhu Sudan Malhotra Vs. Kishore Chand Bhandari & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Aappeal No. of 1987.
(In S.L.P. No. 1719 of 1987.)
(In S.L.P. No. 1719 of 1987.)
Petitioner: Madhu Sudan Malhotra
Respondent: Kishore Chand Bhandari & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Aappeal No. of 1987.
(In S.L.P. No. 1719 of 1987.)
(In S.L.P. No. 1719 of 1987.)
Judges: A.P.SEN & L.M. SHARMA,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 07, 1987
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961; sections 2(i), 4 and 6 – Indian Penal Code, 1860; section 406 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; section 378(4) – Furnishing of list of ornaments etc. at the time of settlement of marriage amounts to demand of dowry within s.2(i) – High Court was in error in refusing to grant leave under s.378(4) of Cr.P.C. – Matter remanded to High Court disposal afresh.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in refusing to grant leave under s. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are prima facie inclined to the view that the furnishing of a list of ornaments and other household articles such as refrigerator, furniture, electric appliances etc at the time of the settlement of the marriage amounts to demand of dowry within the meaning of s.2(i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That being so, the High Court ought to have considered the appeal on merits and decide as to whether the respondents were guilty of offences punishable under s.406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with ss. 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the wrongful retention of the articles given as marriage gifts, while driving out the appellant Smt. Madhu Sudan Malhotra from the matrimonial house. The High Court would also ensure that all the articles given to her at the time of the marriage, including the valuable gold ornaments, are restored to her.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court will grant the requisite leave under s. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hear the appeal on merits. The High Court will come to its own conclusions and consider the matter afresh, without being influenced by any of the observations made by us. The High Court would also take appropriate steps for return of the articles given to the appellant at the time of her marriage.
Appeal allowed.
1. Special leave granted.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in refusing to grant leave under s. 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are prima facie inclined to the view that the furnishing of a list of ornaments and other household articles such as refrigerator, furniture, electric appliances etc at the time of the settlement of the marriage amounts to demand of dowry within the meaning of s.2(i) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That being so, the High Court ought to have considered the appeal on merits and decide as to whether the respondents were guilty of offences punishable under s.406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with ss. 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the wrongful retention of the articles given as marriage gifts, while driving out the appellant Smt. Madhu Sudan Malhotra from the matrimonial house. The High Court would also ensure that all the articles given to her at the time of the marriage, including the valuable gold ornaments, are restored to her.
3. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. The High Court will grant the requisite leave under s. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hear the appeal on merits. The High Court will come to its own conclusions and consider the matter afresh, without being influenced by any of the observations made by us. The High Court would also take appropriate steps for return of the articles given to the appellant at the time of her marriage.
Appeal allowed.
