50,000 as mentioned above.
50,000 and the respondents thereafter demanded the same numberoffence under s. 4 of the Act is disclosed in the companyplaint.
Anita was number sent to the United States and the respondents companytinued to persist in their demand for the money when she was staying in the first respondents house.
Hence the dowry was demanded at Bombay.
50,000 would companystitute an offence under s. 4.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 22nd December, 1981 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appln.
The companytention of the learned companynsel for the respondents before the High Court was that even if the allegations made in the appellants companyplaints were true numberoffence under s. 4 of the Act is disclosed, whereas for the appellant it was companytended before the High Court that the aforesaid demand for Rs.
Therefore, the demand by accused was number made at Agartala.
Instead of writing a direct letter to companyplainant demanding dowry, the demand was made through the elder brother who is residing at Agartala.
283 of 1981.
The respondents challenged the Magistrates order issuing summonses to them by filing their application in the High Court.
It is further alleged by the companyplainant in the companyplaint that the marriage of Alka which was almost settled, companyld number take place due to the demand of dowry made by the accused.
The demand became companyplete when the companyplainant received the letter at Andheri, Bombay.
The second respondent alone went to the United States in July 1979 as the passport and visa for Anita had to be arranged which was done some time later while Anita was staying in the house of the first respondent.
In that view the learned judges allowed the respondents application and quashed the proceedings in the appellantss companyplaint and the Magistrates order issuing the processes to the respondents.
Still the demand is by accused and is made from Wadala at Bombay.
Some respectable persons who were present at that time persuade the respondents to companyplete the marriage ceremonies and formalities and thereafter the marriage ceremonies were over.
S. Desai and G. B. Sathe for the Respondent.
The appellant filed a companyplaint before the Judicial Magis trate, First Class on 5.6.1980 against both the respondents, alleging that they had companymitted an offence under s. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by demanding the sum of Rs.
CAIMINAL APPELLATE JISRISDICTION Criminal Appeal No 494 of 1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
The learned Single Judge before whom the application originally came up for companysideration referred to a Division Bench.
The respondent told the appellant that if he did number companyply with that demand by way of dowry further ceremonies monies would number be companypleted.
The appellant L. V. Jadhav was the first respondent while State of Maharashtra was the second respondent in the application before the High Court.
The application in the High Court was filed by the respondents in this appeal, who are the two accused in that criminal case, for quashing the criminal proceedings as well as the order of the Judicial Magistrate, issuing processes against them in that case.
G. Gokhale and M. N. Shroff for the State of Maharashtra.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
According to the appellants companyplaint, when the marriage ceremonies were in progress on 19.6.1979, both the respondents demanded a cash of Rs.
After Anita and the second respondent approved each other there was an engagement ceremony on 12.6.1978 at Pune and the marriage was performed at that place on 19.6.1979 after the first respondent came from the United States in May 1979.
There was a proposal to get the appellants daughter Anita, a Science Graduate, married to the second respondent, a double Graduate in Engineering, working in the United States.
The offence was partly companymitted at Wadala, Bombay, from there the dowry was demanded.
It was also companymitted at Andheri, Bombay, where the companyplainant received the demand letter.
V. N. Ganpule, Sirish Gupta and Mrs. D. Khanna for the Appellant.
S. Chitale.
283 of 1981, quashing the proceedings in Criminal Case No.
1634 of 1980 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Anti Corruption , Pune.
The first respondent Shankarrao Abasaheb Pawar is the father of the second respondent Pradeep Shankarra Pawar.
50,000 from the appellant in the presence of respectable persons under the pretext that the money was required for the transport of Anita and the second respondents to the United States.
This was done after the appellant had obtained the necessary sanction required by the proviso to s 4 of the Act.
The Judicial Magistrate verified the companyplaint and issued processes to the respondents and sent summonses to the United States where the first respondent was staying with the second respondent at that time.
