IN THE COURT OF ASJ-II, NORTH WEST DISTT.

ROHINI: DELHI
Uma Devi
W/o Sh. Sunil Garg,
D/o Sh. Jai Kumar,
R/o C-451/9, Chandra Quarters,
Rampura, Delhi-35.
Presently residing at
T/367/29, Onkar Nagar-B,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-35.
VERSUS
1. Sunil Garg
S/o Sh. S. C. Garg,
R/o 30, Rajdhani Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi-34.
Address given in the complaint
E-1/21, Phase-I,
Budh Vihar, Delhi.
2. The State (NCT of Delhi)
Date of institution : 24.12.2009
Arguments heard on : 13.05.2010
Date of final order : 02.06.2010

ORDER
This revision petition has been preferred by the revisionist/ petitioner Uma Devi the estranged wife of the
respondent no.1, against the order of Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 by way of which Ld. MM directed the
SHO PS Maurya Enclave to conduct investigation on the allegations made in the complaint as they
attracted the commission of cognizable offence under Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The facts leading to the filing of the revision are briefly stated as under:
A complaint was made by the petitioner/ revisionist regarding harassment by the respondent and his
family on account of dowry demand, on the basis of which FIR No. 218/09 was registered at Police
Station Keshavpuram. In the said complaint it was alleged by the petitioner/ revisionist that she was
married to respondent no.1 on 21.4.2008 according to Hindu Rites and ceremonies at Shubham Vatika,
Mundka, Delhi. As per the allegations prior to the marriage Roka ceremony had taken place on 28.1.2008
and God-Bharai ceremony was conducted on 15.4.2008 at Meri-Maker Banquet Hall, Wazirpur, Delhi and
during the Roka and God-Bharai ceremonies the father of respondent no.1 had spoken to her father
regarding the expenses to be incurred on the marriage and had demanded that Rs.15 to 16 lacs should
be spent on the marriage and 25% to 30 % more was to be spent on the amount settled. It is also alleged
by the petitioner/ present revisionist that after the marriage she was being harassed on account of
insufficient dowry and demands were made by her inlaws on account of which a detail complaint was filed
by the revisionist with the CAW Cell on 16.1.2009, which was after the almost 8 to 9 months of marriage.
It was further alleged that respondent no.1 and his parents are influential people and despite her
complaint, except registration of the FIR No. 218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS Keshavpuram,
neither any dowry articles have been returned nor any arrest has been made.

After the registration of the above FIR the respondent no.1 who is the husband of the petitioner filed a
complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Ld. MM alleging that the complaint of the present
petitioner itself reflected that offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 have been committed. It was
alleged by the respondent no.1 that since the petitioner before this court has already alleged in her
complaint on the basis of which the FIR was registered, that pursuant to the demand by the family of the
respondent, the father of the petitioner fulfilled their demands.
The Ld. MM taking into account the aforesaid directed the investigations and now being aggrieved by the
same the petitioner has approached this court alleging that in the complaint filed by the respondent u/s
156 (3) Cr. P.C, he had intentionally given wrong address as L-425, Shakarpur Colony, New Delhi-34
whereas he is in-fact residing with his parents at 30, Rajdhani Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and now in the
complaint on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed, he has given another false
address i.e. E-1/21, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi.

The Revisionist has also assailed the order of Ld. MM on the ground that it is against the law and facts. It
is pleaded that the revisionist was residing earlier at Rampura, and now at Onkar Nagar, Tri Nagar and
the petitioner after her marriage had resided with respondent no. 1 and her in-laws at 30, Rajdhani
Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi and no incident has happened within the jurisdiction of PS Maurya Enclave
and the respondent no.1 has intentionally mentioned the police station Maurya Enclave in his complaint
and the order passed on the said complaint is having no territorial jurisdiction. It is alleged that the
impugned order has been passed on the basis of the false facts as a counter blast and as such is liable to
he set aside. It is pleaded that the respondent no.1 and his relatives have been causing mental and
physical harassment to her in respect of which FIR No.218/09 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC PS
Keshav Puram has been registered. It is further pleaded that the offences for which directions have been
given are not made out against her and her relations and as such the impugned order may be set aside
as no specialized investigation is required to prove the allegations for commission of an offence under
Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Notice was issued to the respondents but no reply has been filed. The trial court record has been called
which I have duly perused. I have also gone through the written synopsis of arguments filed on behalf of
the revisionist and the authorities relied upon by the parties, which are as under:

1. Sabir Vs. Jaswant and Others (2003) Vol. (1) RCR (Criminal) 479.
2. Ajai Malviya Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2001 (Vol. I) RCR (Criminal) 83.
3. Pawan Verma Vs. SHO PS Model Town & Ors.2009 (Vol. 2) JCC 1000, Delhi High Court.
4. Kalia Prem Rattan Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (Vol.1), RCR (Criminal) 769 (Punjab & Haryana High
Court).
5. Trisuns Chemicals Industry Vs. Rajesh Aggarwal and Others, (1999) Vol. 8, SCC, 686.
6. Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC
545.
7. Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2001, AIR, SCW 189.
Before proceeding further to decide the present revision on merits, it is necessary to observe that the
order of Ld. Magistrate directing the police to investigate on the basis of the allegations made in a
complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can always be challenged in revision and therefore, the present
revision petition is maintainable against the order of the Ld. MM.

The first challenge to the impugned order is on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. MM to
entertain the complaint. In this regard it may be observed that the present revision is the outcome of the
order passed by the Ld. MM dated 21.10.2009 on a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. filed by the
respondent. On that aspect it is necessary to observe that provisions of Sections 190, 193, 179, 177 Cr.
PC, are very clear. The arguments that the Ld. Magistrate taking cognizance should have the territorial
jurisdiction to try the case as well, is on the face of it erroneous. The provisions of Section 177 and
Section 179 [Link] do not restrict the power of any court of Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence
and the only restriction contained in Section 190 Cr. PC is that the power to take cognizance is subject to
the provisions of this Chapter. Any Metropolitan Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of any
offence, no matter whether the offence has been committed within his territorial jurisdiction or not. There
is nothing in Chapter-IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure to impair the power of Metropolitan Magistrate
to take cognizance of the offence on the strength of any territorial jurisdiction. The aspect of territorial
jurisdiction would become relevant only when the question of inquiry or trial arises. Therefore, under
these circumstances, I hereby hold that the Ld. Trial Court being the Metropolitan Magistrate, has power
to take cognizance of the offence even if the offence was not committed within his territorial jurisdiction.
The aspect of territorial jurisdiction becomes relevant only after during the post cognizance stage.
Before proceeding further to discuss the validity of the impugned order on merits, it is necessary to
discuss the existing statutory law. Dowry Prohibition Act, is a welfare legislation which aims at curtailing
and abolishing the vice of dowry. Whenever the valuable security has been given as a consideration for
marriage or for continuation of marriage for a good and happy relationship, then under such
circumstances an act of giving or taking of valuable securities are both covered by the Act. (Ref.: Inder
Sen Vs. Sinte, 1988, Criminal Law Journal, 1116). Dowry is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver
there can be no taker and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the giver and taker
have been made liable (Under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) apart from the fact that even
demand for dowry made is punishable (Under Section 4 of the Act). In a case where it is evident that
there was a demand of dowry even before the marriage and pursuant to such demand, dowry was given
as consideration of marriage, all persons making such demand for dowry and those giving valuable
security as a consideration for marriage or for its continuance as well as those receiving this valuable
security would be guilty under this Act. It is not possible to leave one and book another. Therefore, it is
only that interpretation which is in-consonance with the object sought to be attained by the act that has to
be adopted and nothing else would suffice.

Numerous social welfare legislations have been enacted in favour of women and Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 is one such legislation denouncing traditions and customary practices derogatory to women. It is
unfortunate that this legislation has been reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is
the fact that it is none else but the family of the women (involved in the marriage) who is responsible for
non accomplishment of this legislation. Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received under the
pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this Social Welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is
ruthlessly implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social compulsions. This has become
all the more necessary in order to check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws.
It has been observed that a large number of customary gifts are exchanged at the time of marriage.
These gifts fall outside the purview of dowry in case if they are Istridhan and find a mention in the list
prepared and signed by both the parties (the family of the girl and boy) as required under the Dowry
Prohibition Rules. However, expensive gifts given to relatives which do not fall within the definition of
Istridhan are taxable in the hands of the recipient, in case if the value of the gift which would be a transfer
for inadequate consideration exceeds the statutory limit as provided under the Income Tax Act. Also, in
case of gift of any immovable property, the same would require a compulsory registration. It is, therefore,
necessary for the courts of law to ensure that due inquiry and investigations are got conducted not only
with regard to the source of income of the person giving dowry but also as to whether these transactions
are duly reflected in the Wealth Tax returns of both the Donor and the Donee. Further, in case if it is
established that expensive gifts (i.e. transfer for inadequate consideration) were given to relatives
(beyond the stipulated limit), the competent authority be informed so as to ensure a proper fiscal benefit
to the government by way of tax from recipient of such a gift.

Coming now to the ground raised by the Revisionist that the order of the Ld. MM is against the law and
facts. I may observe that the case of the present petitioner is that there was a demand of dowry by the
respondent no.1 and his family even prior to her marriage. It is evident from the pleadings of the petitioner
and even in her revision petition before this court she has alleged that there were discussions between
her father and father of the respondent no.1 between the roka and godbharai ceremonies, wherein certain
demands were made. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations FIR No.218/09 under Section
498A/406/34 IPC, PS Keshav Puram has already been registered on the basis of the complaint given by
the petitioner against respondent no.1 and his family, which is under investigation. While the said
investigations were pending, the respondent against whom allegations have been made by the petitioner
in the main FIR, approached the court in the complaint under Section 156 (3) for proceedings against the
present petitioner and her family for the various offences committed by him under the Dowry Prohibition
Act and the Ld. MM vide the impugned order dated 21.10.09 directed the SHO concerned to carry out
investigation into the allegations made which disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence.
In the present case, on the basis of the complaint given by the present petitioner, an FIR bearing No.
218/09, PS Keshav Puram had already been registered. Another complaint has now been given by the
accused husband of petitioner for registration of counter FIR against the family of the petitioner who are
alleged to have given dowry pursuant to the demand raised by the family of the husband even before the
marriage. This being so, it is not possible for the Ld. Magistrate under the given circumstances to make
inquiries with regard to the correctness of the allegations regarding giving or taking of dowry which can
only be got inquired into and investigated by the investigating agency which is already investigating the
complaint given by the present petitioner alleging harassment on account of insufficient dowry on the
basis of which the FIR has been already registered.

Directions of the High Court are the laws declared binding all subordinate courts. While dealing with a
similar case Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Dhingra of the Delhi High Court has in the case of Smt. Neera Singh
Vs. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. 138 (2007), DLT-152, I (2007) DMC 545, observed that
Section 3 of the Act lays down a punishment for giving and taking dowry and therefore not only is it
necessary for the courts to insist upon the compliance of the rules framed under the Act and draw
adverse inference where these rules are not followed, but also to ensure that due inquiry and
investigations are got conducted in all such cases which come before it with allegations of demand of
dowry……. Whenever it is noticed that unaccounted cash amounts or expensive gifts are given at the
time of marriage as consideration there of, then it is necessary for the courts of the Ld. Magistrates to
bring these facts to the notice of the government authorities including the Income Tax authority so that not
only the sources of the income of the person allegedly giving dowry but also the correctness of the
allegations with regard to giving dowry are got verified and both the giver and the taker are brought to
law. This being so, all subordinate courts are bound by the aforesaid directions and are under an
obligation to get an inquiry conducted and bring these facts to the notice of the Government Authorities
particularly the Income Tax authorities.
The incidents of misuse and abuse of special provisions of dowry harassment are increasing by the day.
The already overburdened judicial system cannot permit its misuse and abuse and it has, therefore,
become necessary for the courts to verify the correctness of such allegations so as to eliminate the false
complaints made in this regard at its inception. In view of the aforesaid, I find no ground to intervene. The
revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The trial court record be sent back alongwith
copy of this order. Copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to ensure strict
compliance of the directions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Neera Singh Vs. The
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (Supra) while conducting investigations in cases of dowry
harassment. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court