Lakshman Uraon, J. - (1.) BOTH these Crl. Misc. Petitions arise out of the single order passed by learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2000 whereby and whereunder learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In view of this fact, both these criminal misc. petitions are being disposed by a single order.
(2.) O .P. No. 2 Kamala Pd. Oza of both the criminal misc. petitions filed complaint case against the petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions alleging therein that he (complainant) met Praful Joshi and his wife Smt. Anusuiya Joshi @ Annu, both petitioners in Crl. M.P. No. 322 of the 2003, at Jamshedpur in a social function and desired to search a bridegroom for his unmarried daughter Nailini Oza, aged about 20 years. The petitioners expressed their desire that they are also in search of a suitable bride for their son. Accordingly they agreed for marriage negotiation of the son of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 of Crl. M.P. No. 322 of 2003 with the daughter of O.P. No. 2 Kamala Pd. Oza. On 15.1.2000 petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions went to Jamshedpur and they agreed to marry Jatin Joshi and a date was fixed for performance of ring ceremony (Sagai) at Jamshedpur which was reduced in writing. On 26.1.2002, petitioners of both the criminal misc. petitions along with their relatives and friends numbering 60 went to Jamshedpur for the purpose. There were welcomed and were accommodated at Gujrati Sanatan Samaj, Jamshedpur at the cost of the complainant. During the ceremony, valuable articles, namely golden ring, golden chain, wrist -watch and woolen wearing clothes, were gifted to the bridegroom by the complainant. The complainant spent approximately Rs. 50,000/ - to meet the expenses of the said ring ceremony (Sagai) function. The petitioners assured the complainant that they will inform the date of marriage and desired to be solemnized in the months of June or July, 2002. But all of a sudden on 19.7.2002, complainant received a telephonic message who went to their residence on 31.7.2002 at Raurkella. There the petitioners made a demand of Rs. two lakhs as dowry in the form of cash and kinds. They also stated that if the demand is not fulfilled, then they are unable to perform the marriage of Jatin with Nalini. When the marriage negotiation failed only due to non -fulfillment of illegal demand made by the petitioners, complaint case under Sections 406, 420 and 500, IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged by the complainant. Learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur examined the complainant on S.A. and perused the complaint case and documents relating to marriage negotiation and other expenses met by the complainant and found a prima facie case to proceed with the trial against the accused persons who are petitioners in both the criminal misc. petitions and took cognizance of the offenee under Section 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order and submitted that in this case, the taking of cognizance under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, previous sanction of the State Government has not been obtained and as such, it is bad in law and liable to be set aside. Whatever golden ornaments, ring, chains during ring ceremony were given as gift to the bridegroom by the complainant; these properties were not entrusted, therefore Section 406. IPC is also not attracted. Section 3(2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act provides that, "Nothing in Sub -section (2) shall apply to or in relation to presents which were given at the time of marriage, without any demand having been made in that behalf. In the present case, it is evident that no demand, whatsoever, was made by these petitioners regarding presents that were given at the time of ring ceremony. Thus, no offence under Sections 3 or 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out against them. On these grounds, it was urged to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against these petitioners including the order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur in Complaint Case No. 720 of 2002.
(3.) REFUTING the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners in both the criminal misc. petitions, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has argued that Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has been amended by the Central Act in 1984 and Bihar Amendment Act, 1976. In view of the Central Act, 1984, law made by the Parliament will prevail and law made by the State Legislature shall be void to the extent of repugnancy. In view of this fact, no prior sanction is now necessary for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.;