T. Sunil Chowdary, J.:— This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A6 in C.C No. 532 of 2009 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram.
2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition are briefly as follows. The marriage of the first petitioner/A1 was performed with Syamala Rani on 04.5.2007 at Vizianagaram as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After the marriage, Syamala Rani joined with A.1 at Bengaluru to lead happy marital life. Syamala Rani died on 06.9.2008 in suspicious circumstances. The concerned police at Bengaluru registered a case under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, DP Act). After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet against the petitioners. After completion of necessary formalities, the case was taken on file as S.C No. 79 of 2009 and the same is pending.
3. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, under Section 6 of DP Act against the petitioners. After recording sworn statement of the complainant, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 6 of DP Act and numbered the same as C.C No. 532 of 2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the cognizance of offence against petitioners as the concerned Police at Bengaluru already registered the case against the petitioners under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
5. This court carefully perused the relevant provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Section 3 deals with penalty for giving/taking dowry whereas Section 4 deals with penalty for demanding dowry. Section 6 deals with recovery of dowry amount. The scope of Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act is entirely different to that of Section 6 of DP Act. A perusal of Section 6 of DP Act demonstrates that the person, who has received dowry, has to return the same to the woman within three months from the date of her marriage. For better understanding, it is necessary to extract Section 6(1) and (3) of DP Act.
6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or heirs.-
(1) 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 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 receipt; or
(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, 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) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) 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 shall-
• if she has no children, be transferred to her parents, or
• if she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children.
6. In the instant case, Syamala Rani died issueless within 16 months of her marriage under suspicious circumstances. In such circumstances, her parents are entitled to claim the dowry amount, in view of the Proviso to Section 6(3) of DP Act. In the instant, father of Syamala Rani filed the complaint under Section 6 of DP Act. The learned Magistrate, after satisfying himself with the basic ingredients of Section 6 of DP Act, has taken cognizance of the offence. The learned Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance of offence against the petitioners under Section 6 of DP Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Section 210 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate has no option except to stay the present proceedings till disposal of S.C No. 79 of 2009. Section 210 Cr.P.C, deals with the procedure to be followed, when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. The previous case i.e, S.C No. 79 of 2009 was registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act whereas the present case i.e, C.C No. 532 of 2009 was registered under Section 6 of DP Act. The offences alleged in both the cases are not one and the same. Therefore, Section 210 Cr.P.C, is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
8. While deciding petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the charge sheet only. The Court is not justified to scrutinize the allegations made in the charge sheet to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the same. The allegations made in the charges heet prima facie constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners for the offence punishable Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
9. In Madhu Limaye v. State Of Maharashtra . (1977) 4 SCC 551 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“At the outset the following principles may be noticed in relation to the exercise of inherent power of the High Court, which have been followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions.
1. That the power is not to be resorted to if there is a specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party;
2. That it should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice;
3. That it should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.”
10. In Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu v. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy (2011) 12 SCC 437, the Supreme Court held as under:
13. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant and not in a situation where a specific remedy is provided by the statute. It cannot be used if it is inconsistent with specific provisions provided under the Code (vide Kavita v. State (2000 Cri LJ 315 (Del)) and B.S Joshi v. State of Haryana ((2003) 4 SCC 675). If an effective alternative remedy is available, the High Court will not exercise its powers under this section, specially when the applicant may not have availed of that remedy.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the principles enunciated in cases cited supra, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
12. The petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Syamala Rani. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are aged parents, petitioner No. 4 is widowed sister, and petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are sisters of petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are facing much difficulty to attend the trial court on each and every date of adjournment.
13. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, even if the presence of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 is dispensed with, no prejudice will be caused to the second respondent. Hence, the presence of the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6.A.2 to A.6 in C.C No. 532 of 2009 is hereby dispensed with on each and every date of adjournment. However, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 shall appear before the trial Court as and when their presence is so required.
14. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.