The Madras High Court Bench here has held that money demanded by a person from his wife and her parents for investing in his business cannot be construed as dowry demand and, therefore, the accused could not be tried under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Disposing of a petition filed by a family of five to quash a case booked against them on the basis of a complaint lodged by the wife of the prime accused, Justice C.T. Selvam agreed with the petitioners’ counsel that it was necessary for a complainant to prove that money was demanded only as dowry.
Submissions
“This court accepts the submissions of the counsel for petitioners that admittedly the demand for money made by the first accused was towards conduct of business.
The same was not demanded as dowry. Therefore, offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands not made out,” he said.
The judge, however, ruled that such demand for money would attract Section 498A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered that the petitioners could be prosecuted under this provision apart from Section 506 part I (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.
Further, finding that the complainant’s father-in-law was in no way connected with the case, the judge exonerated the elderly man from the case and directed a Judicial Magistrate in Tiruchi to prosecute the victim’s husband, mother-in-law and two sisters-in-law alone.
