ORDER
R.N. Biswal, J.
1. This CRL.M.C. arises out of a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24-4-2004 passed by the S. D. J. M., Angul in C. T. case No. 409 of 2004 rejecting his petition under Section 457 of Cr. P. C. and allowing the petition filed under the same provision by opp. party No. 2.
2. As depicted in the F. I. R. lodged before the O. I. C. of Angul P. S., the petitioner married opp. party No. 2 on 10-5-2001 in accordance with Hindu rites and their Caste custom. At the time of marriage a Bajaj Boxer motor cycle bearing Regn. No. 06D/1972 cash of Rs. 80,000/- and other household articles were given to the bride and the bridegroom. Sometimes thereafter the petitioner and his family members demanded Rs. 80,000/- more as dowry. When the same could not be complied with they tortured opp. Party No. 2 both physically and mentally in many ways. So the F. I. R. As the allegations contained in F. I. R. revealed a cognizable case, Angul P. S. case No. 56 of 2004 was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A/494/34 I. P. C. read with Section 4 of D. P. Act against them. In course of investigation of the case, the I. O. seized the Bajaj Boxer motor cycle bearing Regn. No. 06D/7972 along with some other articles from the house of the petitioner.
3. While the case was pending, on 29-3-2004 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 457 of Cr. P. C. for interim custody of the said motor cycle inter alia on the grounds that he purchased it on 6-5-2001 from the Authorised Dealer Jamuna Auto India, Angul and accordingly it was registered in his name and that the I. O. seized it from his possession.
4. On 6-4-2004 Opp. Party No. 2 filed a similar petition with similar prayer. As per the averment made in the petition her parents and cousin brother, Suraram Singh purchased the aforesaid vehicle from the Authorised Dealer, Bajaj Auto India, Angul, on 6-5-2001 for a sum of Rs. 32,651.00. Accordingly the Authorized Dealer issued Invoice and delivery challan in the name of Suraram Singh. After marriage of Opp. Party No. 2 with the petitioner, the aforesaid documents were handed over to the petitioner keeping the Xerox copies thereof. So claiming herself to be the absolute owner of the motorcycle opposite party No. 2 filed the petition under Section 457 Cr. P. C.
Both the petitioner and opp. Party No. 2 further averred in their respective petitions that after seizure of the aforesaid vehicle it has been kept in the precinct of Angul P. S. being exposed to the vagaries of nature.
5. The learned Court below considered both the petitions and released the vehicle in interim custody of Opp. Party No. 2 holding that it being the Stridhan, she is the absolute owner thereof and the petitioner who can at best be equated with a trustee in respect thereof is not entitled to possess it.
Being aggrieved with the said order, the accused-husband has preferred this CRL.M.C. as mentioned earlier.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly the vehicle stands registered in the name of the petitioner. It was also seized from his possession. So the trial Court ought to have released the same in interim custody of the petitioner. If the vehicle is allowed to be kept with opp. Party No. 2 who does not know how to drive it, till conclusion of the trial of the G. R. case, it would get junked and be rendered unworthy for plying. So the CRL.M.C. should be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 contended that as found from the Invoice and delivery challan, Suraram Singh purchased the vehicle in question from the Authorized Dealer at Angul just four days before the marriage of petitioner with Opp. Party No. 2. Admittedly the petitioner belongs to village Raghunathpur under Jagatsinhpur district, which is at a considerable distance from Angul. Had he purchased a motor cycle he was expected to purchase it from Jagatsinghpur or Cuttack. He would not have come down to Angul to purchase it. So in fact the motor cycle was purchased by the relatives of Opp. Party No. 2 and was handed over as gift to her and the petitioner was only allowed to use it. Accordingly, Opp. Party No. 2 is entitled to the possession of the motorcycle and rightly the trial Court released it in her favour.
8. As per his petition under Section 457 Cr. P. C., the petitioner claims that he purchased the motor cycle from the authorized Dealer at Angul, but his name does not find place as customer in the Invoice and delivery challan. On the other hand name of the cousin brother of Opp. Party No. 2 finds place there. As submitted by the learned Counsel for opp. Party No. 2 and also held by the trial Court if at all the petitioner had to purchase a motor cycle he was expected to purchase it from his nearest market and not from Angul, a far of place. The home town of Opp. Party No. 2 is Angul. So her relatives are expected to purchase the same from the said town. Under, such circumstances, the trial Court rightly held that the relatives of Opp. Party No. 2 purchased the motor cycle from Angul to give her before the marriage altar and gave it.
9. Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 reads as follows :--
'Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-- (1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be 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:
Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term less than five years.
(2) Nothing in Sub-section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to,--
(a) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
(b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):
Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act :
Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given).'
So, as per provision under Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as quoted above, presents given at the time of marriage of the bride without any demand having been made in that behalf and entered in a list, cannot attract the offence under Section 3 of the said Act. In the present case the motor cycle was presented to Opp. Party No. 2 at the time of her marriage to the petitioner and as found from the lower Court record, this (present) has been entered in a list. Perhaps this is the reason for which the offence under Section 3 of the D. P. Act was not registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. So the trial Court rightly held that the motor cycle in question being STRIDHAN of Opp. Party No. 2 she is entitled to its possession and the possession of the petitioner was that of a trustee. He cannot use it without the consent of Opp. Party No. 2 Under such circumstances even though the said motor cycle stands registered in the name of the petitioner and it was seized from his possession still then since Opp. Party No. 2 is entitled to its possession, the trial Court had rightly released it in her interim custody. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court to be interfered with by this Court while exercising inherent power conferred on it under Section 482 Cr. P. C.
The CRL.M.C. stands dismissed accordingly.