Holding

The High Court's order was set aside as it was presumptuous and unsupported by reasons, and the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law cannot be prosecuted absent material evidence.

Summary

A complaint under IPC sections 498A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 alleged dowry harassment by the husband, his parents, brother and sister‑in‑law. The Additional Sessions Judge held that only the husband could be prosecuted, finding no material against the other accused. The Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed this in part, holding that the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law could be prosecuted because they could misappropriate dowry and practice cruelty, but it gave no reasons for its interference. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conclusions were presumptuous and its order was unsustainable for lacking reasons, thereby setting aside the High Court’s order as to the parents. The Court also clarified the meaning of "dowry" under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, stating that customary gifts not given as consideration for marriage are not dowry. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

The High Court erred in holding that the father‑in‑law and mother‑in‑law could be prosecuted for dowry harassment without material evidence.
The High Court failed to record reasons for its order, violating the requirement of reasoned judgments.
The proper interpretation of "dowry" under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, especially concerning customary gifts.
The scope of appellate review when a lower court’s order lacks reasons.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 401
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961s. 2
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 148, s. 149, s. 323, s. 406, s. 498A, s. 506

Subjects

dowry harassmentcrueltySection 498Areasoned judgmentnatural justiceappellate reviewpresumptionmisappropriationdefinition of dowry

Judgment

- "'' i

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 216 ~
A RAN SINGH AND ANR. --r
II.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2008)
I

JANUARY 30, 2008 •
I
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] '
r-
.
,
"""'
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 498A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and
L
r-
149 - Offences. under - Complaint against husband his ~-

c parents, brother and sister - Initiation of prosecution - In
revision Sessions Judge directed prosecution· of husband
alone - High Court holding the parents of husband responsible
for cruelty - On appeal, held: Order of High Court, so far as
parents of the husband, is concerned is presumptuous and
D without assigning any reasons - Hence set aside to that extent.
~
Judgment - Recording of reasons in - requirement of - I~

Discussed.
~....,

Words and Phrases - 'Dowry' - Meaning of in the context
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. ..
E
Predecessor of respondent No. 2 filed a complaint
ulss. 498-A, 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC against
husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and
married sister-in-law of respondent No. 2. He alleged that
F they were responsible for harassing respondent No. 2 for
A
dowry. Judicial Magistrate proceeded against all the ;

accused. In Revision Petitions filed by the accused, ..'
~
Sessions Judge held .that only husband could be ~

proceeded against, as no case was made out against the
>--
G rest of the accused. High Court upheld the order of 1~

Sessions Judge, so far as husband, brother-in-law and
...
I

sister-in-law were concerned. But regarding father-in-law ~

and mother-in-law it held .that they were to be prosecuted I
observing that they could misappropriate articles of
~
H 216
.+ RAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 217
ANDANR.

dowry and could practice cruelty. Hence the present A
appeal by father-in-law and mother-in-law.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has fallen in grave error
while observing that present appellants "could B
misappropriate" and "who can practice cruelty". The
conclusions are presumptuous. Sessions Judge by a well
reasoned order had held that there was no material to show
that demand for any dowry was made and an attempt was
made to rope in many persons. When the High Court was c
interfering with such conclusions arrived at on facts it
ought to have indicated the reasons necessitating such
interference. [Para SJ [221-F-G; 222-A]
2. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set D
forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative
of an application of its mind. The absence of reasons has
rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision
taker to the controversy in question and the decision or E
conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if
the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx",
it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the
Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the F
power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the
decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a
sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why G
the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for
the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The
"inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous
with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Paras 9
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A and 1O] [222-B, D, E, F, G]
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
1974 LCR 120 - referred to.
B 3. The word "dowry" is defined in Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, there are three occasions
related to dowry. One is before the marriage, second is at
the time of marriage and the third "at any time" after the
marriage. The third occasion may appear to be unending
c period. But the crucial words are "in connection with the
marriage of the said parties". Other payments which are
customary payments e.g. given at the time of birth of a
child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different
societies are not covered by the expression "dowry".
D [Para 7] [221-D, E, F]
Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab 2001 (8) SCC 633 -
referred to.
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
E No. 222 of 2008. L
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2005 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. R. No.
2468/2003. .

F Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.
,A
r-
Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', Rajesh Ranjan. T.V. George and
f
Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondents. ~
:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.. ~

G Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted ..
> Jr
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a ,.
learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ~

allowing the Revision Petition filed under Section 401 of the ,,1--

~
H Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') which

~
- ..
+ RAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 219
AND ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]
-~
was filed before it by Kurra Ram since deceased and A
represented by his daughter i.e. respondent No.2 in the present
appeal.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

A complaint was filed by the aforesaid Kurra Ram alleging B
commission of offences punishable un'der Sections 498-A,
~ 406, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(in short the 'IPC') by Jaswant-son in law and husband of his
daughter-Saroj, Ran Singh and Raj Bala, the present
appellants who were father and mother of Jaswant and two c
others namely, Jai Singh and Suman, the brother and married
sister of Jaswant.

It was stated in the complair:it that Saroj got married to
Jaswant on 14.4.1994 and that she was harassed for dowry by
D
the aforesaid accused persons. Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, after recording preliminary evidence
..,... of the complainant, aecided to proceed against all the accused
'"" persons for the alleged offences. Separate Revision Petitions
were filed by Jai Singh, Ran Singh and Suman taking the stand
that there is no offence made out so far as they are concerned. E
Learned Additional Sessions Judge found that no case was
made out against aforesaid accused persons and directed that
proceedings would continue only against Jaswant. The order
dated 4.11.2003 disposing of the revisions in the aforesaid
,:> manner was challenged by Kurra Ram in the Revision Petition F
before the High Court. It was held by High Court that there is no
ground to proceed against Jai Singh and Suman who may just
be living in the house, but may not be interfering in matrimonial
problems of Saroj and Jaswant. Therefore, the order of the
Additional Sessions Judge was upheld to that extent. But so far G
.... ..- as the present appellants are concerned the High Court inter
alia observed as follows:

~. "However, when articles of dowry are handed over to
~i:
elder members in the family that will mean that those
\ H
\=

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
+ r

-<-
A were handed over to Ran Singh and Raj Bala i.e. father .;
and mother of the husband who could misappropriate. ..
It is they who can practice cruelty for less dowry or
otherwise."
(Italics for emphasis)
B The High Court noted that police had earlier registered a
case and had sent cancellation report and thereafter the
j
complaint was filed by Kurra Ram who appeared as PW-1, as
his son Rajesh appeared as PW-2 and Saroj as PW-3.

c 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
High Court failed to notice that some customary articles were
given to relatives of the bridegroom. That cannot be covered by
the expression 'dowry'. High Court noticed the fact that the \
complainant tried to rope even a married sister who was living \

far away and the brother, which shows the tendency to falsely
D
implicate them. Reference is also made to the following
observations of the High Court: I.--
.,.._,.,
".. They are close relatives but the fact remains that an
effort is made by the complainant to implicate as many
E persons as possible, in such matters." '. ;

'
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State and the
complainant submitted that it is not a case where the Additional
Sessions Judge should have interfered and the High Court has
therefore rightly set aside.the order dated 4.11.2003 which was
F impugned before it. _.l, I

'
6. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (in short
'Dowry Act') defines "dowry" as under:-
Section 2. Definition of 'dowry' - In this Act, 'dowry' means
G any property or valuable security given or agreed to be
I
given either directly or indirectly - ~~
-'-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to
the marriage; or \r
;..-
H (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
+· RAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 221
AND ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]
....,..
.; any other person, to either party to the marriage or A
~
to any other person,
at or before or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include
dower or mehr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
B
personal law (Shariat) applies.

~ Explanation I- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
declared that any .presents made at the time of a marriage
to either party to the marriage in the form of cash,
ornaments, clothes or other articles, shall not be deemed c
to be dowry within the meaning of this section, unless they
are made as consideration for the marriage of the said
parties.
Explanation II- The expression 'valuable security' has the
same meaning in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code D
(45 of 1860)."
..,...,. 7. The word "dowry" is defined in Section 2 of the Dowry
Act. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry. One is
before the marriage, second is at the time of marriage and the
E
third "at any time" after the marriage. The third occasion may
appear to be unending period. But the crucial words are "in
connection with the marriage of the said parties". Other
payments which are customary payments e.g. given at the time
of birth of a child or other ceremonies as are prevalent in different
-~ . societies are not covered by the expression "dowry". (See Satvir F
Singh v. State of Punjab (2001 (8) SCC 633)) .
8. The High Court has fallen in grave error while observing
that present appellants "could misappropriate" and "who can
practice cruelty". The conclusions to say the least are
G
presumptuous. Learned Additional Sessions Judge by a well
-<
reasoned order had held that there was no material to show
that demand for any dowry was made and an attempt was made
to rope in many persons. When the High Court was interfering
with such conclusions arrived at on facts it ought to have
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-+
A indicated the reasons necessitating such interference. That has
not been done and on the contrary on presumptuous conclusions
...(--
.
""
the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge has been set
aside.
· 9. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
B
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an -;
application of its mind. The absence of reasons has rendered
the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
'\
.c 10. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120} it was Qbserved:
D "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons
are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the
controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis
,
...:~

on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the
E "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it
virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate "
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable
·f
part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to
indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court.
F -~
Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements
of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in
other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx"
G is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial
performance.
i'
11. It is to be noted that the High Court itself has held that
1
there was an attempt to rope in many persons and it did not find .....
any merit or challenge to the discharge of the married sister
H
RAN SINGH AND ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 223
AND ANR. [PASAYAT, J.]

and the brother. A
12. Above being the position, the impugned order of the
High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. We make it
clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits so far
as husband Jaswant is concerned.
B
13. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.

-
I

--·