Lakshman Uraon, J.
1. Both these Crl. Misc. Petitions arise out of the single order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of this fact, both these criminal misc. petitions are being disposed by a single order.
2. O.P. No. 2 Kamala Pd. Oza of both the criminal misc. petitions filed complaint case against the petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions alleging therein that he (complainant) met Praful Joshi and his wife Smt. Anusuiya Joshi @ Annu, both petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 322 of the 2003, at Jamshedpur in a social function and desired to search a bridegroom for his unmarried daughter Nailini Oza, aged about 20 years. The petitioners expressed their desire that they are also in search of a suitable bride for their son. Accordingly they agreed for marriage negotiation of the son of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 of Crl. M.P. No. 322 of 2003 with the daughter of O.P. No. 2 Kamala Pd. Oza. On 15.1.2000 petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions went to Jamshedpur and they agreed to marry Jatin Joshi and a date was fixed for performance of ring ceremony (Sagai) at Jamshedpur which was reduced in writing. On 26.1.2002, petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions along with their relatives and friends numbering 60 went to Jamshedpur for the purpose. There were welcomed and were accommodated at Guj-rati Sanatan Samaj, Jamshedpur at the cost of the complainant. During the ceremony, valuable articles, namely golden ring, golden chain, wrist-watch and woolen wearing clothes, were gifted to the bridegroom by the complainant. The complainant spent approximately Rs. 50,000/- to meet the expenses of the said ring ceremony (Sagai) function. The petitioners assured the complainant that they will inform the date of marriage and desired to be solemnized in the months of June or July, 2002. But all of a sudden on 19.7.2002, complainant received a telephonic message who went to their residence on 31.7.2002 at Raurkella. There the petitioners made a demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry in the form of cash and kinds. They also stated that if the demand is not fulfilled, then they are unable to perform the marriage of Jatin with Nalini. When the marriage negotiation failed only due to non-fulfillment of illegal demand made by the petitioners, complaint case under Sections 406, 420 and 500, IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by the complainant. Learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur examined the complainant on S.A. and perused the complaint case and documents relating to marriage negotiation and other expenses met by the complainant and found a prima facie case to proceed with the trial against the accused persons who are petitioners in both the criminal misc. petitions and took cognizance of the offenee under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and submitted that in this case, the taking of cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, previous sanction of the State Government has not been obtained and as such, it is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Whatever golden ornaments, ring, chains during ring ceremony were given as gift to the bridegroom by the complainant; these properties were not entrusted, therefore Section 406. IPC is also not attracted. Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that, 'Nothing in Sub-section (2) shall apply to or in relation to presents which were given at the time of marriage, without any demand having been made in that behalf. In the present case, it is evident that no demand, whatsoever, was made by these petitioners regarding presents that were given at the time of ring ceremony. Thus, no offence under Sections 3 or 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against them. On these grounds, it was urged to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against these petitioners including the order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2002.
4. Refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in both the criminal misc. petitions, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has argued that Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been amended by the Central Act in 1984 and Bihar Amendment Act, 1976. In view of the Central Act, 1984, law made by the Parliament will prevail and law made by the State Legislature shall be void to the extent of repugnancy. In view of this fact, no prior sanction is now necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 provides that, 'penalty for demanding dowry, if any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years and with cost which may extend to Rs. 10,000/-, provided that the Court may, for acquittal or special reason, to be mentioned in the judgment in passing a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months. This amended provision is very clear that no sanction to take cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is required, which has been interpreted in a case of, Deo Narain Lal Das and 5 Ors. v. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in 1992 (2) PLJR 560.
6. The fact of the case is that a marriage negotiation in the form of ring-ceremony took place at Jamshedpur. The complainant gifted golden ring, golden chain, wrist watch, woolen wearing clothes and spent Rs. 50,000/- on 27.1.2002 at Jamshedpur in arranging feast, lunch and accommodation for that purpose. The gifts were given to the bridegroom by the complainant trusting that marriage will be performed with his daughter Nalini Oza for which parents of Jatin, who are Praful Joshi and his wife Anusuiya Joshi @ Annu, promised to solemnize after fixing the date in the months of June or July, 2002. But later on they retracted their gentlemen's agreement to perform marriage, rather started demanding cash and kinds valued Rs. two lakhs as dowry. As the complainant could not provide the demands made as dowry, hence the marriage could not be solemnized. Dowry has been defined as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given, either directly or indirectly, by any party to the marriage by other party to the marriage or (b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person to the other party to the marriage or the any other person, either or before (or any time after the marriage), including the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dowry or Mehar in the case of person to whom Muslim Personal Law (Sariyat) applies.
7. On 15.1.2002 at Jamshedpur when the petitioners of Crl. Misc. No. 322 of 2003 saw the bride (daughter of the complainant), 'they agreed to marry with Jatin Joshi and that for ring ceremony was fixed which was reduced in writing signed by the father of the bridegroom, petitioner No. 1. and the complainant. Thus, the said document is a valuable security to attract definition of dowry as defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
8. Ring ceremony was performed at Jamshedpur with the expenses regarding accommodation, feast, breakfast, gifts at the cost of the complainant/O.P. No. 2 believing that his daughter Nalini will be married with Jatin Joshi, son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 of Crl. Misc. No. 322 of 2003. That was entrustment prior to marriage, although in the form of gifts. The gift was not without any motive, rather with only purpose of settlement of marriage of Nalini Oza with Jatin Joshi. When that marriage could not be performed, then the agreement entered in between the fathers of bride and bridegroom and the expenses met by O.P. No. 2 in the form of gifts, feast and accommodation, was frustrated. The learned S.D.J.M. considered all these allegations made in the complaint petition, S.A. of the complainant and the documents related to negotiation and other expenses, found sufficient materials prima facie to proceed with the trial against the petitioners of both the criminal misc. petition (Nos. 1195 of 2002 and 322 of 2003) and took cognizance of the offence under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. The Magistrate has applied his mind before taking cognizance on the basis of documents available on record and followed the proceedings and took cognizance of the offence as he found prima facie case in the complaint petition itself. At this stage, the Magistrate has not to consider the defence plea or the fact as to whether the case of the complainant will be proved in course of trial. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, under challenge. On the other hand, I do not find any merit in both these Crl. M.P. No. 1195 of 2002 and Crl. M.P. No. 322 of 2003.
10. In the result, both these criminalmisc. petitions fail being devoid of any meritand accordingly they are dismissed. Theorder dated 17.1.2002 passed by this Courtregarding stay of further proceeding in complaint case No. 720 of 2002 pending theCourt of S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur is vacatedand the impugned order, under challenge,is hereby affirmed.