Skip to content


Ranjit Kaur Vs. Atam Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Criminal

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Case Number

Criminal Misc. No. 2572-M of 1990

Judge

Reported in

I(1991)DMC100

Acts

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2

Appellant

Ranjit Kaur

Respondent

Atam Singh

Appellant Advocate

 S.M.L. Arora, Adv.

Respondent Advocate

 U.D. Gaur, Adv.

Disposition

Petition allowed

Cases Referred

Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr.

Excerpt:


.....appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments having the force of law be it against original/appellate decree or order heard and decided by a single judge. it has to be kept in mind that the special statute only provide for an appeal to the high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a..........to whom the muslim personal law (shariat) applies.explanation i xx xxexplanation ii--the expression valuable security has the same meaning as in section 30 of the indian penal code (45 of i860)'.in terms of clause (b) of section 2 of the dowry prohibition act, 1961 the ornaments given by mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law in ranjit kaur petitioner: after her marriage with manvinder singh are her 'dowry' and accusation of their misappropriation levelled by her father-in-law atam singh against the petitioner in complaint annexure p. 4 is, therefore, wholly groundless.2. learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to the observations made by the supreme court in pratibha rani v. suraj kumar and anr., air 1985 sc 628 and urged that the petitioner should disprove the allegations levelled against her in complaint annexure p. 4 before the learned trial court and get herself exonerated therefrom and until this is done by her there is no justification for quashing the complaint. the argument advanced is wholly without merit and the authority cited does not support it. complaint annexure p. 4 is being quashed on account of its being groundless for the reasons aforesaid and.....

Judgment:


S.D. Bajaj, J.

1. Heard. Amended definition of term dowry obtaining in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 reads ;--

'Definition of dowry :--In this 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 any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

Explanation I xx xxExplanation II--The expression valuable Security has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of I860)'.

In terms of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 the ornaments given by mother-in-law to her daughter-in-law in Ranjit Kaur petitioner: after her marriage with Manvinder Singh are her 'dowry' and accusation of their misappropriation levelled by her father-in-law Atam Singh against the petitioner in complaint Annexure P. 4 is, therefore, wholly groundless.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr., AIR 1985 SC 628 and urged that the petitioner should disprove the allegations levelled against her in complaint Annexure P. 4 before the learned trial court and get herself exonerated therefrom and until this is done by her there is no justification for quashing the complaint. The argument advanced is wholly without merit and the authority cited does not support it. Complaint Annexure P. 4 is being quashed on account of its being groundless for the reasons aforesaid and because continuance-of further proceedings based upon it against the petitioner before the learned trial court, would obviously be in terms of the legal position explained above an abuse of the process of the Court and cause avoidable harassment to the petitioner at the hands of her father-in-law.

3. In result Criminal Misc. No. 2572-M of 1990 succeeds and is allowed. Complaint Annexure P-4 and the summoning order dated 16th December, 1989 of the learned trial court passed against the petitioner on its basis are both quashed.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //