Judgment:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 286/84 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate V Court, Bangalore City. The petitioner married the deceased Chandrakala in about 1982. On 23-2-1983 at about 9.30 p.m. she sustained burn injuries and three days later she died in the Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. On 25-2-1983 her statement was recorded by the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Jivan Bimanagar Police Station, Bangalore. On the basis of that, a case was registered under S. 307 I.P.C. against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. Later, the investigation was taken over by C.O.D. Bangalore. After completing the investigation the C.O.D. police have filed a charge-sheet in the court below against the petitioner for offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') only as they found after investigation that Chandrakala had committed suicide.
2. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, on the police report, and issued process against the petitioner-accused. Hence this petition by the accused for quashing the proceedings.
3. Mr. C. V. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the parents of deceased Chandrakala have not stated in their statements recorded by the police that there was an agreement to give site, radio etc., to the petitioner as consideration for his marriage with Chandrakala subsequent to the marriage or at the time of performance of the marriage and as the acceptance of Rs. 10,000/- by the petitioner-accused was at the time of the marriage in June, 1982 the offences alleged must have been committed in June, 1982 only and the lower court could not have taken cognizance of such offences as the police report had been filled only on 22-2-1984, i.e., beyond the period of one year from the date of commission of the offences in view of S. 7(b) of the Act.
4. According to S. 7(b) of the Act, as it then stood, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, no court shall take cognizance of any such offence except on a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence.
5. In view of explanation to S. 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the police report is deemed to be the complaint as it disclosed the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, which were non-cognizable then.
6. According to S. 2 of the Act, 'dowry' means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly -
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person,
at or before or after the marriage as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.'
7. In this case the only material collected by the investigating officer is that the father of Chandrakala gave Rs. 10,000/- to the accused at the time of Chandrakala's marriage in June, 1982. Even assuming that the accused accepted Rs. 10,000/- as stated by the father of the deceased, that offence was committed by the accused only in June, 1982. It is nobody's case that a site, radio etc., were agreed to be given to the accused after the marriage as consideration for the marriage. The police report is dated 22-2-1984. That is beyond the period of one year from the date of the alleged offence. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of S. 7(b) of the Act.
8. In the result, the petition is allowed and the the proceedings against the petitioner accused in C.C. No. 286/1984 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate V Court, Bangalore City, are hereby quashed.
9. Petition allowed.