Full Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.
1. This petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2013 of 1984 pending against the applicants in the Court of IInd Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kasganj.
2. The petition was admitted on 30.1.1985 and further proceedings in the Trial Court were stayed on the same day. However, neither any one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant-opposite party No. 3 nor any counter affidavit has been filed either on her behalf or on behalf of the State. The Court has, therefore, to proceed on the basis that the averments made in the petition and affidavit are correct.
3. Smt. Meera Rani Agarwal, the complainant-opposite party No. 3 filed a criminal complaint on 19.12.1984 against the applicants that her marriage with Amrish Kumar Agarwal (A-l) was performed at Kasganj, District Etah on 30.2.1982 and thereafter she continued to perform her marital obligations. Soon after her marriage the applicant No. 1 and his parents (A-2 and A-3) started making demand of a motor cycle and additional dowry. She politely told him that the economic condition of her father was bad and he was not in a position to fulfil the demands made by them. In April, 1983, the applicant No. 1 assaulted the complainant due to which she received injuries. She sent a letter to her father informing him about the incident and then her brother Rajesh came to Faridpur to fetch her She came to her parental home in Kasganj and started residing there. Since then the applicant No. I and her in-laws (A-2 and A-3) did not bother to call her nor sent any money for her maintenance. The case of the complainant further is that at the time when she was coming alongwith her brother all the accused threatened her not to make any complaint or to tell anyone about incident otherwise she would be killed. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and thereafter passed an order on 4.1.1985 holding that a prima facie case under Section 498A, I.P.C. has been made out and the accused be summoned to face trial.
4. In paragraph-1 of the complaint, it is alleged that the accused had committed an offence under Sections 498A, 120B, 504 and 506, I.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate has chosen to summon the accused only under Section 498A. I.P.C.-A perusal of the complaint shows that the marriage of the complaint with applicant No. 1 Amrish Kumar Agrawal was performed on 3.2.1982 and soon thereafter a demand of dowry was made by him and his parents. It is stated in paragraph-4 of the complaint that she was beaten by applicant No. 1 in April, 1983 and thereafter. she sent a letter to her father and shortly thereafter her brother Rajesh came to fetch her. It is further stated that after she came to her parental home, the accused did not at all bother to call her or to send any money for her maintenance. In paragraph-13, it is stated that the complainant had lodged an F.I.R. regarding the occurrence, which took place on 22.4.1983. According to the complainant, the demand of dowry was made after 3.2.1982 till April/May, 1983 and after she came to her parental home in Kasganj, District Etah, the accused did not at all bother to take care of heft They neither called her nor sent any money for her maintenance. It is, thus, obvious that the complainant was subjected to cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498A, I.P.C. between 3.2.1982 and April/May, 1983 and not thereafter. Section 498A has been inserted by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 (Act 46 of 1983) with effect from December 25,1983. At the time when the alleged offence was committed, Section 498A, I.P.C. was not in existence and it has been incorporated in Indian Penal Code subsequently by means of an amendment. Clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution lays down that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence; nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. A sovereign Legislature has the power to enact prospective as well as retrospective laws but Clause (1) of Article 20 imposes two limitations upon the law-making power of legislative Authorities in India as regards retrospective legislation. It prohibits the making of ex-post facto criminal law, i.e. making an act a crime for the first time and then making that law retrospective. It also prohibits the infliction of a penalty greater, than that/which might have been inflicted under the law, which was in force when the act was committed. As shown earlier, the act which amounts to an offence under Section 498A, I.P.C. are alleged to have been committed by the accused prior to the date on which the aforesaid section was incorporated in the Indian Penal Code by means of Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983. In these circumstances, the conviction of the accused-applicants under Section 498A will clearly violate Clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution. Since the accused cannot be convicted under Section 498A, I.P.C. their prosecution under the aforesaid section is not justified. The order dated 4.1.1985 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, Etah, summoning the accused to face trial under Section 498A, I.P.C. is, therefore, illegal and has to be set aside.
5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order dated 4.1.1985 passed by IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasganj, District Etah, summoning the accused-applicants under Section 498A, I.P.C. is quashed. It is however made clear that it will be open to the learned Magistrate to summon and try the accused, if they have committed any other offence.