Shall it be advisable to file case under dowry prohibition act-1961 against the girl’s family
Raman
(Querist) 28 December 2012
This query is : Resolved
Shall it be advisable to file case under DOWRY Prohibition Act-1961 against the girl’s family
Dear Sir,
If the boy family resident of Delhi as been falsely implicated under section 498-A/406/506 sections but not under Dowry Prohibition Act at remote areas and Boy’s family get arrested and take regular bail and trail too taking place at remote areas. Thereafter girl filed case of 125 CrPC. In FIR the girls’ family has admitted that they have given huge valauable things at the occassion of marriage without complying the list which needs to made under rules and expenditure is too high as compare to their financial status
The alleged statement in FIR as well in his written complaint and statements made in clearly shows that they has committed offence under section 3 of D.P Act-1961 as giving and taking of dowry is crime.Apart from this on persaul of FIR there is no where stated that any family member of boy has ever demanded dowry or has taken dowry from them
In the view of circumstances the boy family who is residing in delhi can file the case before Metropolitan Magistrate about the registering of crime . Many experts of this forum ( which I have seen in some texts) don’t agree and indicated that giving dowry means that you have taken dowry and section 7(3) clearly provides immunity to the aggrieved from offences
And as per judgement made by Hon’ble High Court in CRLMC that book the girl family who is taking dowry and many mens forum too agree to impose this section on girls family
Please comment as marriage took place in delhi, and matrimonial home is also located in Delhi, whether its advisable to proceed with this before they implicate the boy’s family on taking the dowry or gift articles
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 28 December 2012
This type of case filed by the girl would son die its natural death.
However before filing the case under DP Act do consider that it is the complainant who would be immune from prosecution , not his family members.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 28 December 2012
First do herculean task of coming out of trouble and then (if left with spare money) think of such costly experiments.
Raman
(Querist) 28 December 2012
Devjyoti Barman Sir,
In that case, if all of family members join together as complainants then whether its wise option to get pritection as section 7(3) of D.P Act-1961?
Whether filing complaint before Ld Magistrate whether its necessary that all of the complainants should be appear in person if they sign the caomplaint in written form??
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 29 December 2012
Dear Querist
section 7 - Cognizance of offences:
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)-
(a) No court inferior to that of Metropolitan Magistrate or a judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;
(b) No court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon-
(i) Its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or
(ii) A complaint by the person aggrieved by the offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognized welfare institution of Organisation.
(c) It shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorised by this Act or any person convicted of any offence under this Act.
Explanation. -For the purposes of this sub-section, "'recognized welfare institution of organisation" means a social welfare institution or Organisation recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.
(2) Nothing in Chapter - XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.]
2[(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.]
1. Subs. for "Section 7" by Act No. 63 of 1984, (w.e.f. 2- 10-1985 ).
2. Ins by Act No. 43 of 1986, (w.e.f. 19-11-1986 ).
STATE AMENDMENTS
BIHAR
For Section 7, the following shall be substituted, namely, -
"7. Trial of offences: - Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974) no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act."
[ Bihar Act 4 of 1976]
Haryana
For Section 7, the following section shall be substituted, namely, -
"7. Cognizance of offences-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974), -
(a) No Court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;
(b) No Court shall take cognizance of any such offence exempt on a complaint made by any party to the marriage or her father, mother or brother or a Gazetted Officer specially authorised by the State Government in this behalf, within a period of one year from the date of the marriage;
(c) No Court shall take cognizance of any such offence except with the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of such officer as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify in this behalf-,
(d) No enquiry shall be got made through any Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police;
(e) No woman shall be called to a Police Station for the purpose of an enquiry regarding
[Haryana Act 38 of 1976]
HIMACHAL PRADESH
In its application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, Section 7, substituted as under:-
"7. Trial of offences-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), no Court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of this first class shall try any offence under its Act.
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, except that of offence under Section 4-B, except on a police report or complaint made with one year of the marriage."
[Himachal Pradesh Act 25 of 1976 and 39 of 1978]
Punjab
For Section 7, the following section shall be substituted, namely, -
"7. Cognizance of offences-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), -
(1) No Court inferior to that of a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;
(2) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 4-B except upon a complaint made within one year from the date of the offence, by some person aggrieved by the offence:
Provided that, -
(a) Where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local customs and manners, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, some other person may, with the leave of the Court, make a complaint on his or her behalf-,
(b) Where the person aggrieved by an office is the wife, complaint may be made on her behalf by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her father's or mother's brother or sister; and
(3) Every offence under Section 4-A shall be cognizable;
Provided that no police officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act or make any arrest therefor."
[ Punjab Act 26 of 1976]
WEST BENGAL
In Section 7--
(a) For the words and figures "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1985 (5 of 1989), the words and figures "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)", shall be substituted
(b) For the words "Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first classes" in the two places any where they occur, the words "Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class" shall be substituted;
(c) In Clause (b), for the words "one year from the date of the offence" the words "three years from the date of the offence" shall be substituted.
Guest
(Expert) 29 December 2012
Dear Raman,
You have not stated, when the marriage took place.
However, your action to file a case under DP Act would be considered just an act of retalliation as an after-thought after you have been booked by girl's side.
The question would arise, if you were not willing to accept the dowry, why did you accept the articles of dowry at the time of marriage and not made a complaint to the police against the parents of the girl before the girl or her parents filed a case of sec. 498-A/406/506 and 125 etc.?
If you have a satisfactory answer with you, you can go ahead with your proposal.
Raman
(Querist) 30 December 2012
Dear Dhingra Sir,
Here the marraige took place in Delhi on 2006 and FIR has been lodged in 2012 after 8 years of marraige..The FIR u/s 498-A/406 is fled after 7-8 years of marraige
The girl herself has misued the law for the sake of money and admitted in FIR that they have given expensive articles at the occassion of marraige
and No where ist has ststed that we have accepted any articles from girls family
Whether theri own admission is not sufficent??
How long the boy's family will defence their case in such system without having fault of its own
iN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCE SWHETHER ITS NOT THE GOOD IDEA TO FILE THE COUNTER CASES which most of the mens and save family assoications are making advocay for the same
Guest
(Expert) 30 December 2012
In your case, either the year 2006 of marriage can be wrong or 8 years of marriage be wrong in your statement.
Even if it is a case of 6 years, the question would still persist, why you felt the need to make complaint about dowry case now only after 6 years of marriage and kept mum for all these 6 years? If you feel that you can harm the girl's side by your complaint under DP Act, please don't forget, both giver and taker of dowry are treated as offenders under DP Act, rather the case becomes serious for the taker of dowry than the giver of dowry. So, better concentrate on defending your present case, rather than opening another harmful front for you and your family in addition to the present one.
So far as misuse of law is concerned, in almost every case, one or the other party often misuses the law, but depends upon proving that rather than saying.
So, rest depends upon your wisdom or the advice of your advocate, how both of you would like to proceed to defend yourself.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 30 December 2012
you stand advised,
Now it is purely upto you what to do.
Many persons have by their historical success or failure in cases, provided material for law text books.
If you succeed then the others have a benefit of learning you your experience and if you fail atleast you learn.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 02 January 2013
I am not in favour of filing DP case as this shall go against you and strengthen the case of the complainant/wife.
Adv.Aiyer VLV
(Expert) 19 September 2016
Dear Mr Raman
You now may not be interested in the advise. But i would like to add an important matter, so it will help those who view this query
IMMUNITY
immunity granted is only for Aggrieved. In the event the dowry receiver files complaint against the person who gave dowry, he doesn't become Aggrieved.
DOWRY RECEIVER NOT AGGRIEVED
It is simple, if dowry receiver was considered as Aggrieved, like 498A there would have been another section imposing penalty on dowry giver.
So law doesn't consider receiver Aggrieved.
You will be digging your own grave with confession of offence under DP Act
