- (1.) WE have heard Sri Janardan Sahai learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri N. . Chaturvedi who is appearing on behalf of caveat. This peti tion has been filed by Manish Jain, Umesh Kumar Jain and Smt. Tara Jain under Ar ticle 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief to quash the complaint by Bhojdutt respondent No. 3 (Annexure 1) to the petition as also the notice dated 20-5-1998 (Annexure 2) sent by District Dowry Prohibition Officer Firozabad on the said complaint. SriJanardan Sahai,learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before this Court that the Dowry Prohibition Officer has no jurisdic tion either to entertain the said complaint or to summon the petitioners. His conten tion is that since the marriage of the par ties has taken place at Patna and since a perusal of the complaint also indicates that demand for dowry which the petitioners do not admit was made at Patna hence the Dowry Prohibition Officer, Firozabad has no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners.
(2.) WE have gone through the com plaint as also the other annexures which have been filed along with this petition. In a nutshell it is not disputed that the en gagement of Manjoosha daughter of the complainant Bhojdutt was performed with Manish Jain s/o Sri Umesh Kumar Jain at Firozabad. Thereafter the marriage bc-twsen two was performed at Patna. The complaint says thai at the time of marriage itself the party of bride-groom and other relatives were unhappy with the dowry; hence even before the Vidai ceremony they had expressed their anguish and unhappi-ness on the dowry, It is further mentioned that at the time of Vidai additional de mand was made for a diamond set and a Ccilo car and it was made clear that till these things were not given they would not take Manjoosha with them in Vidai. The complaint further says that under the com pelling circumstances although he knew that he would not be able to arrange a diamond set and a Celio car,. yet to facili tate Vidai of his daughter he agreed to give these items later. Thereafter the. in-laws of Manjoosha started torturing her/this fact was conveyed to the complainant at Firo/,abad by his daughter on telephone and when she visited Firo/abad after her marriage. Ultimately on the first wedding anniversary of Manjoosha complaint's son Hemendra, his son's wife Smt. Savita and Anand went to Patna. They were surprised to find Manjoosha seriously ill. It was then that Manjoosha informed her brother etc. about the neglect in her treatment as also about the abortion which was conducted by her in-laws and for which even the bill of Rs. 1121/- was handed over by Manish Jain to Hemendra demanding its money, which : Hemendra paid immediately. On being forced by Manish and his parents, Hemendra brought back Manjoosha to Firozabad in a set of clothes which she was-wearing and at that time also Manish' Jain. Umesh Jain and Smt. Tara Jain made it clear that unless a diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, Manjoosha- would have to remain at her father's place and if she was sent back to Patna then Manjoosha wouid be killed. The complaint further mentions that when the treatment of Manjoosha was got done at Agra by a specialist Lady-Doctor it was found that she was not properly treated and any delay might have caused her death. The com plaint further says that due to such behav iour to his daughter Manjoosha she had become a victim of mental torture and remained always under stress. The complaint further mentions that despite all these episodes the complainant talked to his daughter's in-laws on telephone and requested to them to keep his daughter with theni but they categorically staled that unless the diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them, the complainant's daughter would have to remain at the residence of the complainant. Ultimately the complaint mentions that since all efforts of compro mise failed hence the complainant sent a notice to the in-laws of the daughter. Un der the circumstances a request was made in the complaint that the Dowry Prohibi tion Officer Firozabad may have the nec essary legal action initiated against the aforesaid persons and have them punished in accordance with law. To examine whether the Dowry Prohibition Officer has jurisdiction to en tertain this complaint or not, we consider it proper to go through the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Section 1 give a title of the Act and shows its application to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. This act came into force on 20-6-1991 on its publi cation in the Gazette of India. Section 2 defines Dowry and reads as follows : 2. In this Act, "dowry"'means any property of 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 mar riage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or be fore (or any time after the marriage) (in con nection with the marriage Of the said parties, but does not include) dower of mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. " Sections 3 and 4 provide the pen alty for giving and demanding dowry and taking dowry. Section 4, imposes ban on advertisement for dowry. Section 5 pro vides that any agreement for giving and taking dowry shall be void. Section 6 pro vides dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs. Section 7 prescribes taking of cognizance of offence. Section 8 prescribes that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to offence under (his Act as if they were cognizable offences etc. and that every offence shall be non-bailable and non-compoundable offence. Section 8-A prescribed burden of proof in certain cases. Section 8-B (1) provides that State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas in respect of which they shall exercise their jurisdiction and powers under this Act. Section 8-B (2) thereafter reads as follows- (2) "every Dowry Prohibition Officer shall exercise and perform the following powers and functions, namely: (a) to see that the provisions of this Act are complied with; (b) to prevent, as far as possible, the tak ing or abetting the taking of or the demanding of, dowry; (c) to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act; and (d) to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Govern ment, or as may be specified in the rules made under this Act. (3) The State Government may, by notifi cation in the official Gazettee, confer such powers of a police officer as may be specified in the notification on the Dowry Prohibition Officer who shall exercise such powers subject to such limitations and conditions as may be specified by rules made under this Act. (4) The State Government may, for the purpose of advising and assisting the Dowry Prohibition Officers in the efficient perform ance of their functions under this Act, appoint an Advisory Board consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) from the area is respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Offi cer exercises jurisdiction under sub-section (1 ).
(3.) SECTION 9 gives powers to the Cen tral Government to make rules and SECTION 10 gives power to the State Government to make rules. As is clear by the reply dated 22-5-1998 of Sri Sushil Kumar Singh given by him on behalf of the petitioners to Sri N. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate, who had served no tice on petitioners on behalf of Smt. Manjoosha, the fact of (ring engagement) ceremony taking place at Firozabad on 26-8-1996 followed by the presentation of a set of gold ornaments etc. to the bride is not denied by the petitioners. The com plaint also mentions the fact that when the complainant rang up the petitioners at Patna requesting that Manjoosha be ac cepted back even then it was cnveyed to the complainant at telephone at Firozabad that Manjoosha will be acceptable only if diamond set and a Ceilo car was given to them. It is relevant to note that in the definition of Dowry under this Act it has been made clear that any property given by one party to the other party at or before the marriage constitutes Dowry. Accordingly items exchanged at the time of engage ment ceremony at Firozabad would amount to dowry within the meaning of this Act.;