HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the Order dated 21.12.1998 passed in C/1 Case No. 586/1996, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below has been pleased to Order for framing charge against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that complainant -opposite party filed a case to the effect that he was in search of a suitable bridegroom for his eldest daughter Kiran Pandey then he got information that petitioner Purshottan Dubey, is also interested to perform marriage of his son and there was a negotiation between both the sides and in course of negotiation the petitioner said to the complainant -opposite party that there would be no demand of dowry. Thereafter the opposite party was telephonically informed to come to the residence of the petitioner and he went there and he was asked to pay sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs to meet the expenses of Barati, transportation, etc. which opposite party No. 2 - complainant agreed to pay and paid. Thereafter considering the desire or inquisitiveness of son of the petitioner, who was to be married with Kiran Pandey, daughter of opposite party No. 2 - complainant, about Maruti car, but by that time Maruti car was not to be supplied by the concerned company then he had purchased a Maruti car in black but the complainant opposite party No. 2 was again informed that the accused petitioner does not require Maruti Car and in place of Maruti car a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs was demanded from the opposite party No. 2 - complainant. Then complainant -opposite party No. 2 sent a message to the petitioner No. 1 that he does not want to perform marriage of his daughter to the son of the petitioner No. 1 and thereafter he made a request for refund of Rs. 1.50 lacs, then on one pretext or other the amount was not refunded and then he filed the complaint case as aforesaid. On the other hand, petitioners denied that they had taken money and a notice to the effect was served on the petitioners through the Lawyer and in reply to which petitioners denied the allegation that they demanded the money and further that no information regarding revocation of marriage was given to him.
(3.) THE sole contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that no case under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out because no sanction has been obtained by the opposite party No. 2 for filing this case nor sanction has been obtained prior to the date of taking cognizance and learned Court was not justified in taking cognizance. Thereafter the petitioners came before the High Court by filing Cr. Misc. No. 2673/1998 (R), wherein the following Order was passed : '29.6.1998 -Heard both parties. In view of the allegation made in the complaint petition. I think no case is made out for quashing the entire criminal prosecution relating to C/1 Case No. 586 of 1996. Accordingly, the prayer is rejected. However, petitioner's Advocate submitted that in this case cognizance has also been taken under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act besides other Sections of the Penal Code. So far as Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, sanction is must and that has not been obtained. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that sanction may be obtained subsequently also. However, he also submitted that Trial Court may proceed even without sanction and provision of the Penal Code. Thus in view of the submission made on behalf of both the parties if the complainant will not be able to produce the necessary sanction for prosecution of the accused persons under the various provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act then in that case Trial Court will proceed under the provision of the Penal Code. Accordingly, this application is disposed of in the manner indicated above.' ;