Safeguarding against the Misuse
Case Under The Dowry Prohibition Act Cannot Be Instituted Without Prior Sanction Of The District Magistrate
It is definitely entirely in the fitness of things and most refreshing and most reassuring to learn that the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh while drawing clear red lines for prosecution under the Dowry Prohibition Act has in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kamaljeet Singh and ors. vs State of Punjab and anr. in CRM-M-40527-2023 (O&M) and cited in Neutral Citation No.:= 2024:PHHC:110631 and so also in 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 223 that was reserved on 23.08.2024 and then finally pronounced on 28.08.2024 presided over by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has made it abundantly clear in no uncertain terms holding unequivocally that a case under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be instituted without prior sanction of the District Magistrate. We thus see that the Chandigarh High Court quashed the FIR that had been registered against Kamaljeet Singh and others under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, due to the absence of prior sanction from the District Magistrate. We thus see ostensibly that this notable judgment clearly reinforces the legal necessity for prosecutorial sanction in dowry cases as has been mandated by Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
By all accounts, the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi who authored this noteworthy judgment very sagaciously sums up saying precisely that, “A perusal of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab alongwith the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court would go to show that no prosecution can be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate.” No denying it! It must be also mentioned here that the Chandigarh High Court was hearing a plea under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR that had been lodged in 2023 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
At the very outset, this remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of FIR No.16 dated 18.02.2023 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1) as well as the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-2).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 while delving briefly on the facts of the case stating that, “The brief facts of the case leading to the registration of the FIR are that the complainant-Surjan Singh son of Mangat Singh got registered the aforementioned FIR with the allegations that he had got fixed the marriage of his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur with accused-petitioner No.1 Kamaljeet Singh for 07.12.2022. The accused forced him to book the California Palace at Dirba. The marriage cards had been printed and all the planning had taken place including distribution of cards. However, the accused persons got greedy and demanded Rs.25 lacs as dowry as a condition precedent for the marriage. A Panchayat was convened and respectables reached the house of the accused persons where they again reiterated their demand of dowry of Rs.25 lacs, upon which, they would perform the marriage of Kamaljeet Singh with his daughter-Kuldeep Kaur. Therefore, the accused had committed the offence in question for which they were liable to be prosecuted. A copy of the FIR is attached as Annexure P-1 to the petition.”
As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 of this brief judgment that, “Based on the investigation conducted, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented and the copy of the same is attached as Annexure P-2 to the petition.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 4 of this brilliant judgment that, “The aforementioned FIR (Annexure P-1) and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2) are under challenge in the present petition.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 5 of this balanced judgment while narrating the petitioner’s contention that, “The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab, the prosecution itself could not be instituted against any person under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate, etc. Initiation of prosecution meant that the FIR could not be registered and therefore, there was no question of consequential investigation. As there was an express bar to the very institution of proceedings, therefore, the FIR (Annexure P-1) and the final report (Annexure P-2) were liable to be quashed. Reliance is placed on the judgments in ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 947, Deepak Kumar and Anr. Versus The State of Punjab and anr. (in Crl. Misc. No.-5304-M of 1988 decided on 13.01.1989, Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur versus Mrs. Harjinder Kaur (in Crl.Misc. No.8580-M of 1988 decided on 25.09.1989), Angrez Singh and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors. (in Crl. Misc. No.8021-M of 1990 decided on 12.04.1991), Nirmal Kaur versus Balbir Singh and ors. (in CRR No.272 of 1991 decided on 08.12.1991), Komal Jain versus Amit Jain and ors. (in CRR-3000 of 2010 decided on 04.08.2011) and State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604’.”
What cannot be glossed over is that the Bench points out in para 6 that, “The learned Amicus Curiae for respondent No.2 has not disputed the legal position as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 9 that, “Before proceeding further, it would relevant to examine the provisions of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“8-A. Institution of proceedings.–No prosecution shall be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate or of such officer as the State Government may by special or general order appoint in this behalf.””
Briefly stated, the Bench while citing the relevant case law mentions in para 10 that, “In ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., 2007(2) Crimes 91’, one of the questions which had arisen was as to when did a prosecution begin. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term ‘prosecution’ would include institution or commencement of a criminal proceeding and would also include an inquiry and an investigation.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 11 that, “The judgments in ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., Deepak Kumar and Anr. Versus The State of Punjab and anr. Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur versus Mrs. Harjinder Kaur, Angrez Singh and ors. Versus State of Punjab and ors., Nirmal Kaur versus Balbir Singh and ors. Komal Jain versus Amit Jain and ors. and State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra) are to the effect that the proceedings are liable to be quashed if there is no prior sanction under Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab obtained from the District Magistrate.”
Most significantly, what really constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then encapsulated in para 13 postulating that, “A perusal of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab alongwith the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court would go to show that no prosecution can be instituted against any person in respect of any offence committed under the Act without the previous sanction of the District Magistrate.”
No less significant is what is then laid bare in para 14 mandating that, “As in the instant case, the FIR has been registered without any prior sanction of the concerned officer, it is apparent that there is an express legal bar engrafted in provisions of the Act to the institution and continuation of proceedings.”
As a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 15 that, “In view of the above, I find considerable merit in the present petition. The same is allowed and the FIR No.16 dated 18.02.2023 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered at Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur (Annexure P-1), the final report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure P-2) as well as all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.”
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi has made it indubitably clear in this most commendable judgment that case under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be instituted without the prior sanction of the District Magistrate. We need to pay attention here and it must be stated at the risk of repetition that Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab explicitly prohibits the institution of a case against any person in respect of any offence committed under this Act without the previous sanction of the DM or other authorized officer appointed by the State Government. It is thus a no-brainer that the Chandigarh High Court very rightly quashed the FIR that had been registered against the petitioner – Kamaljeet Singh and others under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, due to the absence of prior sanction from the District Magistrate as mandated under Section 8-A. No denying or disputing!
