BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD, A.P. & ANR.

                        [2016] I S.C.R. 103



       BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS.                          A
                                 v.
   STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC
 PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD, A.P. &
                     ANR.
                                                                      B
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 45 of2016)
                       JANUARY 19, 2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A. K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of C
proceedings - Wife of first appellant died in suspicious
circumstances - Father of the deceased filed complaint against
appellants - husband and in-laws u/s.6 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act alleging that he had paid dowry amount and other articles to
the appellants on their demand and the same were not returned -
Cognizance of offence taken by magistrate - Petition for quashing D
of proceedings - Held: Giving of dowry and the traditional presents
at or about the time of weSdding does not in any way raise a
presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put
under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close
relations so as to attract ingredients of s.6 of the Act - In the
                                                                       E
instant case, after marriage, the deceased and first appellant resided
in Bangalore while appellants 2 to 6, the in-laws were residing
separately in Vizianagaram - Therefore, it cannot be said that the
dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to return
the same to the deceased - In the absence of specific allegations
of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to F
6, continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to
6 was not just and proper and the same is quashed - Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.6.
      Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
      HELD: 1. If the dowry amount or articles of married woman G
was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would
be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving
dowry articles or the person who is dominion over the same, as
per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return
the same within three months after the date of marriage to the H
                                103
104              SUPRE\-IE COURT REPORTS                  (2016] I S.C.R.



A     woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does
      not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section.
      The section further lays down that even after his conviction he
      must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated
      in the order. [Para 9] [108-E-F]
B            2. The marriage of the appellant and the deceased was
      solemnized in Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and the couple was
      living in Bangalore. Appellants 2 to 6-the parents and sisters
      of appellant No.1 were living in Vizianagaram. There are no
      specific allegations against appellants 2 to 6 that the dowry
      articles were entrusted to them and that they have not returned
c     the dowry amount and the articles to the deceased. Equally,
      there are no allegations that those dowry articles were kept in
      Vizianagaram and used by appellants 2 to 6 who were separately
      living away from the couple in Bangalore. Even though
      complainant has alleged that the dowry amount was paid at the
D     house of the accused at Gajapathinagaram, there are no specific
      allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to
      appellants 2 to 6. [Para 12] [110-A-B, H; 111-A]
             3. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about
      the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption
E     that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the
      dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations
      so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry
      Prohibition Act. After marriage, the deceased and first appellant
      were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect
      of 'stridhana articles' given to the bride, one has to take into
F     consideration the common practice that these articles are sent
      along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of
      common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman
      in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by
      her in her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have
G     been residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that
      the dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to
      return the same to the deceased. Facts and circumstances of
      the case and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the
      complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the
      Dowry Prohibition Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no
H     sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6.
BOBBILIRAMAKRJSHNARAJUYADAV v. STATE OF A. P.REP.BYITS                       105
             PUBLIC PROSECUSTORHIGH COURT OF A.P.

Appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for the               A
offence under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal
proceeding under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is
independent of the criminal prosecution under Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the absence of specific allegations             B
of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2
to 6, continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants
2 to 6 is not just and proper and the same is liable to be quashed.
[Para 13] [111-B-F]
      Pratibha Rani v. Sura} Kumar & Anr. 1985 (3) SCR
      191 : (1985) 2 SCC 370; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia                    c
      & Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors.
      1988 (2) SCR 930 : (1988) 1 SCC 692 - relied on.
                        Case Law Reference
      1985 (3) SCR 191           relied on.                Para 10           D
      1988 (2) SCR 930           relied on.                Para 11
      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 45 of2016
      From the Judgment and Order dated 23.07.2014 of the High Court         E
of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of
Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 1778 of 2010
      Sateesh Galla, N. Sravan Kumar, N. Rajaraman for the Appellants.
     G. Prabhakar, Prema Singh, Naresh Kumar, Vidya K. Sagar,
Gaurav Kumar for the Respondents.                                            F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted.
       2. The present appeal assails the order dated 23.07.2014 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition            G
No.1778 of 2010, whereby the High Court declined to quash the
proceedings against appellants No. I to 6 in C.C. No. 532 of 2009 under
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 pending before Additional
Judicial First Class Magistrate. Vizianagaram.
      3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:-   H
106                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [20161 1 S.C.R.


A     First appellant is working as an Engineer in G.E. India Technology
      Company at Bangalore. Appellants No.2 and 3 are the parents, appellant
      No.4 is widowed sister and appellants No.5 and 6 are the sisters of
      appellant No. I. Marriage of first appellant and Syamala Rani was
      performed at Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and after marriage, Syamala
      Rani was residing at Bangalore with her husband-appellant No. I.
B
      Syarnala Rani died on 06.09.2008 under suspicious circumstances and a
      case was registered in FIR No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B, 498A
      !PC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at H.A.L.
      Police Station, Bangalore City. On completion of investigation in the said
      case, chargesheet was filed against the appellants No. I to 6 and the
c     case was committed to Sessions Court vide committal order dated
      29.12.2008 and was taken on file as S.C. No.79 of 2009 in the Court of
      Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Second respondent-father of
      Syamala Rani filed a private complaint against the appellants under
      Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that he had paid dowry
      amount and other articles which were presented as dowry to the
D
      appellants on their demand and the same were not returned. The
      Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 6 of the Dowry
      Prohibition Act in C.C. No.532 of 2009.
             4. The appellants then preferred a petition under Section 482
      Cr.P.C. before the High Court to quash the complaint i.e. C.C.No.532
E     of 2009 contending that the complaint does not disclose an offence and
      that FIR No.1492 of 2008 was already registered against the appellants
      at Bangalore city. The High Court vide the impugned order dismissed
      the petition filed by the appellants holding that the offence> alleged in the
      previous case in S.C.No.79 of 2009 emanating from the FIR No.1492
F     of 2008 and the subsequent complaint in C.C.No.532 of 2009 are not
      one and the same as the previous case was registered under Sections
      304B and498A IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
      Act, whereas the subsequent case is registered under Section 6 of the
      Dowry Prohibition Act which is independent of the previous case. Being
      aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
G
            5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
      Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint as the
      previous case was already registered against the appellants in FIR
      No.1492 of 2008 under Sections 304B and 498A !PC read with Sections
      3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the same is pending trial in
H     Sessions Case No.79 of2009 at Bangalore city and hence the subsequent
BOBBILIRAMAKRISHNARAJUYADAV v. STATEOFA. P.REP.BYITS                            107
   PUBLIC PROSECUSTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

complaint is not sustainable. It was further submitted that the subsequent      A
complaint C.C.No.532 of 2009 emanates from the same cause of action
and the allegations in the complaint do not constitute the alleged offence
under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the complaint is an
afterthought for wrecking vengeance on the appellants.
       6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted         B
that the complaint case in C.C. No.532 of 2009 under Section 6 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the previous case i.e. FIR
No.1492 of 2008 and the pendency of the said case before the Sessions
Court, Bangalore shall not affect the complaint filed under Section 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act. It was submitted that even after death of
Syamala Rani, the appellants threatened the complainant and his family          C
members and the complainant-respondent No.2 had led several
mediations with the appellant No. J for return of dowry amount and other
articles which were presented as dowry on demand made by the appellants
and inspite of such mediations, the appellants did not return the dowry
amount and other articles and hence a prima facie case is made out              D
against the appellants and the High Court rightly declined to quash the
proceedings.
     7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
impugned judgment and material available on record.
        8. Section 6 of the Dowry Proljibition Act lays down that where         E
the dowry is received by any person other than the bride, that person
has to transfer the same to the woman in connection with whose marriage
it is given and if he fails to do so within three months from the date of the
marriage, he shall be punished for violation of Section 6 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Section 6 reads as under:-                                     F
      6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or her heirs.-(!)
      Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman
      in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall
      transfer it to the woman-
       ( a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within [three            G
            months] after the date of marriage; or
       (b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage,
           within [three months] after the date of its receipts; or
       (c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor,
                                                                                H
108               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] l S.C.R.



A               within [three months] after she has attained the age of eighteen
                years; and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the
                benefit of the woman.
            [(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by
            sub-section (l) within the time limit specified therefore, [or as
B           required by Sub-section (3 ), ] he shall be punishable with
            imprisonment for a term which shall not be Jess than six months,
            but which may extend to two years or with fine [which shall not
            be Jess than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten
            thousand rupees] or with both.]
C           (3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section
            ( l) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled
            to claim it from the person holding it for the time being:
            [Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her
            marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property
D           shall,-
            (a) if she bas no children, be transferred to her parents; or
            (b) if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending
                such transfer, be held in trust for such children. I
             9. If the dowry amount or articles of married woman was placed
E
      in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be
      trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person
      who is dominion over the same, as per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition
      Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of
      marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If
F     he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section.
      The section further Jays down that even after his conviction he must
      return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order.
             10. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar & Anr. (1985) 2 SCC
      370, this Court observed as follows:-
G           "20. We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the
            husband and wife Ii ving together does not entitle either of them to
            commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will
            be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law
            and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in
H           matrimonial home are as much punishable as anywhere else. In
BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV v. STATE OF A. P. REP. BY ITS                       109
   PUBLIC PROSECUSTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. [R. BANUMATHI. J.]

      the case of stridhan property also, the title of which always remains        A
      with the wife though possession of the same may sometimes be
      with the husband or other members of his family, if the husband
      or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they
      will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of
      trust under Sections 405 and 406 of the !PC.
                                                                                   B
      21. After all how could any reasonable person expect a newly
      married woman living in the same house and under the same roof
      to keep her personal property or belongings like jewellery, clothing
      etc., under her own lock and key, thus showing a spirit of distrust
      to the husband at the very behest. We are surprised how could
      the High Court permit the husband to cast his covetous eyes on
                                                                                   c
      the absolute and personal property of his wife merely because it
      is kept in his custody, thereby reducing the custody to a legal
      farce. On the other hand, it seems to us that even if the personal
      property of the wife is jointly kept, it would be deemed to be
      expressly or impliedly kept in the custody of the husband and ifhe           D
      dishonestly misappropriates or refuses to return the same, he is
      certainly guilty of criminal breach of trust, and there can be no
      escape from this legal consequence ..... "
        11. It is well-settled that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should
be sparingly exercised in rare cases. As has been laid down by this                E
Court in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Ors. vs.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Ors., (1988) 1 SCC 692, that
when a prosecution at the initial stage was asked to be quashed, the test
to be applied by the Court was as to whether the uncontroverted allegations
as made in the complaint prima facie establish the offence. It was also
for the Court to take into consideration any special feature which appears         F
in a particular case to consider whether it was expedient and in the
interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This was so on
the basis that the Court cannot be utilized for arv oblique purpose and
where in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are
bleak and therefore, no useful purpose was likely to be served by allowing         G
a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into
consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings
even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
       12. In the light of the well settled principles, it is to be seen whether
the allegations in the complaint in the present case and other materials           H
110               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2016] I S.C.R.


A     accompanying the complaint disclose the offence punishable under
      Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Marriage of first appellant and
      Syamala Rani was solemnized in Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and the
      couple was living in Bangalore. Appellants 2 to 6-the parents and sisters
      of appellant No. I were living in Vizianagaram. It is the contention of the
      appellants that there are no allegations in the complaint that the 'stridhana
B
      articles' were given to appellants 2 to 6 and that they failed to return the
      same to Syamala Rani. In paras (3) and (4) of the complaint filed by the
      second respondent, it is alleged that he paid the dowry amount "to the
      accused and some 'stridhana articles' like double cot and other furniture
      and utensils required to set up a family''. In the complaint, it is vaguely
c     alleged that even after death of deceased-Syamala Rani, the accused
      started threatening the complainant and that the accused offered to pay
      an amount of Rs. I 0,000/- towards full and final settlement. The relevant
      avennents in the complaint in paragraphs (5) and (6) read as under:-
             "5. The complainant submits that even after the death of the
D            deceased the accused by keeping the dead body on one side,
             started threatening the complainant and his family members that
             if they give any report to the police, they will be killed then and
             there only and they offered to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
             towards full and final settlement. There the complainant, who
             was in deep shock at the death of his daughter could not answer
E            anything but gave a report to the police.
             6. The complainant submits that he lead several mediations with
             the accused through his colleagues, whose names are mentioned
             below for return of the dowry, but the accused did not return the
             amount and other amounts, given under different heads. A duty
F            cast upon the accused to return those articles and amount, which
             were presented as dowry on demand made by the accused. The
             complainant reserves his right to file a fresh complaint against all
             the accused for return of the dowry."
      By reading of the above, it is seen that there are no specific allegations
G     against appellants 2 to 6 that the dowry articles were entrusted to them
      and that they have not returned the dowry amount and the articles to
      Syamala Rani. Equally, there are no allegations that those dowry articles
      were kept in Vizianagaram and used by appellants 2 to 6 who were
      separately living away from the couple in Bangalore. Even though
      complainant has alleged that the dowry amount was paid at the house of
H
 BOBBILIRAMAKRISHNARAJUYADAV v. STATE OF A. P. REP.BY ITS                       111
   PUBLIC PROSECUSTOR HIGH COURTOFA.P. [R. BANUMATHI, J.]

the accused at Gajapathinagaram, there are no specific allegations of           A
entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 6.
        13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the
time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a
property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-
in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of    B
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As noticed earlier, after marriage,
Syamala Rani and first appellant were living in Bangalore at their
matrimonial house. In respect of 'stridhana articles' given to the bride,
one has to take into consideration the common practice that these articles
are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of
common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in                   C
connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in her
matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have been residing
separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that the dowry was given
to them and that they were duty bound to return the same to Syamala
Rani. Facts and circumstances of the case and also the uncontroverted           D
allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against appellants 2 to 6 and
there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants 2 to 6.
Be it noted that appellants 2 to 6 are also facing criminal prosecution for
the offence under Sections 498A, 304B !PC and under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Even though the criminal proceeding under         E
Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is independent of the criminal
prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in the
absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and
articles to appellants 2 to 6, in our view, continuation of the criminal
proceeding against appellants 2 to 6 is not just and proper and the same        F
is liable to be quashed.
       14. The impugned order in Criminal Petition No.1778 of 2010 is
set aside qua the appellants 2 to 6 and the appeal is partly allowed.
Devika Gujral                                          Appeal partly allowed.
                                                                                G