Income Tax Judgement S.N DHINGRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 12.02.2007
Date of Decision: February 23, 2007
CRL.M.C.7262/2006

23.02.2007

Smt. Neera Singh ..... Petitioner
Through:Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. V.K. Singh,
Advocates

versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)andORS.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for respondent
Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advocates for
State.

CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES.

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES


SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of
petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the
order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh
Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of
the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and
Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) of
the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member
of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going
through the evidence observed as under:
?Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the
accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing
insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused
persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and consequent harassment for not
meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her husband and in
laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most
of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme
Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from
demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing
insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the
purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty
to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of of dowry. There
is not a single allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant
was ever harassed with respect to further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie


case under Section 498A is not made out against accused Bishan Pal, Santosh
Devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh.?
2. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before
the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the
entire material observed as under:
? In the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing
separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The
Ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband
only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely,
Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. The Ld.
Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that
the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the
complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time
was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or
two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not
sufficient enough to attract Section 498A. There are not specific allegations
with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the
complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry
articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific
allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt.
Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh.?
3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry
demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC
was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC
would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father ?You have
given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a
flat tomorrow?. Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her
knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family
irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and
her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after
breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider
where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously
register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short ? the Act?) against the
parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of
dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of
grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand,
she and her family becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on
marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is
made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of
income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist
upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns
and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry
Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not
been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition(Maintenance of List of
Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:
?2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE
MAINTAINED.-(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage
to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.
(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the
bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.
(3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-
(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible
after the marriage;
(b) shall be in writing;
(c) shall contain:-
(i) a brief description of each present;


(ii) the approximate value of the present;
(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and
(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom,
a description of such relationship.
(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.
5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence
under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are
made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts
should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if
rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash
amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted
anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income
Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person
is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon
compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such
complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant,
without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring
in.
6. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint
by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be
accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be
scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the
complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of allegations
against her husband regarding beating, that her husband was having illicit
relationship with 35 girls; he forced her to write suicide note, abused her,
taunted her, threatened and told her that he was getting another bride of more
richer family while she was in Rewari with her husband and she made telephone
call to her parents who came to Rewari and took her to parental home. She had
also given phone to one of her friends Jigyasa. A perusal of the statement of
Jigyasa would show that she told Jigyasa that it was her husband who was
torturing her and behaving with cruelty. However, in her complaint, she made
vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members. The statement
made by her and other witnesses have been scrutinized by me, except vague
allegations and allegations of taunting, there are no allegations of
perpetuating cruelty on her by any of the four respondents in order to compel
her to bring more dowry or any particular items.
7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no reason to disagree with
the order of two Courts below. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of
merits.

February 23, 2007 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
rd