LIVE Course on Transfer Property Law | Price Hike in 4 days | Grab it now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Raj (law)     11 September 2015

Section 3 of dowry prohibition act

Dear Sir,

My family has been booked under 498-A/406 IPC on the complaint made by Sister-in law. In complaint he has alleged that he has given huge dowry at the settlement of marriage and made bogus list worth of Rs 40-50 lakh. In the FIR/Complaint he nowhere has stated that we have demanded dowry

On the legal advice, we filed the case under section 2/3 of Dowry prohibition Act-1961 by invoking sections of 156(3) & 190/200 of Crpc before the court of ld JMFC. On the application of 156(3) Crpc, the complaint was referred to the area Police where police take the statement of my Brother’s Father-in law in which he has admitted that he has given huge dowry. But the Police did not register the FIR on grounds of territorial Jurisdiction and filed the ATR in the Ld JMFC court

The matter was heard and re-heared many times. Finally on today, the Ld JMFC said that he is not convinced as far as disposing of section 2/3 of D.P Act is considered, he will booked both the parties in FIR as both giving and taking dowry is crime. we have argued that now here in complaint we have admitted that we have taken dowry nor there is demand from our side. But he has not convinced. Finally he has granted 1 month adjournment for clarification


No my queries are:

  1. Whether we can claim immunity under section 7 (3) of Dowry prohibition Act and pryed the Ld JMFC to booked the proposed accused for “giving” dowry?

  2. Any relevant judgments/citations which can be useful for convincing the Ld JMFC?

  3. Whether its wise to withdraw the application under 156(3) Crpc as Ld JMFC is adamantly implicating the complainant for “Taking the dowry” under section 3 of D.P Act?

  4. If we withdraw the application under 156(3) of Crpc whether Ld JMFC can allow us to lead the case under 190/200 of crpc?


 1 Replies

NATARAJAN IYER (Proprietor)     12 September 2015


If you are innocent, invoke section 211 of the IPC



Central Government Act
Section 211 in The Indian Penal Code
211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure.—Whoev­er, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.


Of that 40-50 Lakhs, how much can they account for, by cheque, DD and receipts ?


You must stick to one line of argument.


" She and her family always had the freedom to reject the marriage proposal instead


of giving dowry.


They have not done that.


Why ?


What is their intention ? 


Did they give dowry to lure you into marriage and then to control you by blackmailing you ?


Did they give dowry to resort to such threats later ?


Their intention is malafide and suspicious. "


These links throw more light


The courts clearly observerved that nowadays the turn in marital disputes have taken a curiopus disputes with the women turning agressors and found that there was no justification for the said software engineer to have filed any complaint with police station . This judgement was reported in ILR [1] 2006 .
In 2006 UP High court high court again provided relief against vexatious dowry and harassment cases observing  there had been no reason for the cases.
In late 2006 chennai high court quashed the case of an SIF member completely .
In 2007 Delhi high court represented by justice Dhingra made the observsation that the those brides who come with gift horses should be punished. They give lots of gifts in marriage and when marriage goes sour they start screaming dowry and harassment . This is nothing but a sick mentality gone sour after refusing to allow the prosecution of an husband.
The undertones of trend are clear . It needs to be strenghtened . Without  smoke there is no  question prosecuting someone for starting the fire. Merely the wife and her relative making sound of "fire fire " is no justification for prosecutingdowry , harassment cases.
If marriage goes sour go for divorce. If you do not have money then work and earn money is my messge to the young girls and women . Do not use 498a or  dowry cases as money making business
The courts are slowly starting to protexct against maliciouos prosecution and they will soon start prosecuting the malicous prosecuter. Time for Section 211 which has existed as dead letter for such long time is now to be brought alive . The trends are obvious. for too long and too much have 498a and DP act been allowed to be casue havoc to innocent families   

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Related Threads

Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads

Popular Discussion

view more »

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query