BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD, A.P. & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 103 · Decided: 19-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] I S.C.R. 103 
BOBBILI RAMAKRISHNA RAJU YADAV & ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP. BY ITS PUBLIC 
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P. HYDERABAD, A.P. & 
ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 45 of2016) 
JANUARY 19, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, A. K. SIKRI AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 - Quashing of C 
proceedings -
Wife of first appellant died in suspicious 
circumstances - Father of the deceased filed complaint against 
appellants - husband and in-laws u/s.6 of the Dowry Prohibition 
Act alleging that he had paid dowry amount and other articles to 
the appellants on their demand and the same were not returned -
Cognizance of offence taken by magistrate - Petition for quashing 
of proceedings -
Held: Giving of dowry and the traditional presents 
at or about the time of weSdding does not in any way raise a 
presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put 
under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close 
relations so as to attract ingredients of s.6 of the Act - In the 
instant case, after marriage, the deceased and first appellant resided 
in Bangalore while appellants 2 to 6, the in-laws were residing 
separately in Vizianagaram - Therefore, it cannot be said that the 
dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to return 
the same to the deceased - In the absence of specific allegations 
of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to appellants 2 to 
6, continuation of the criminal proceeding against appellants 2 to 
6 was not just and proper and the same is quashed - Dowry 
Prohibition Act, 1961 - s.6. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. If the dowry amount or articles of married woman 
was placed in the custody of his husband or in-laws, they would 
be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving 
dowry articles or the person who is dominion over the same, as 
per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return 
the same within three months after the date of marriage to the 
103 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
104 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPRE\-IE COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does 
not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this Section. 
The section further lays down that even after his conviction he 
must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated 
in the order. [Para 9] [108-E-F] 
2. 
The marriage of the appellant and the deceased was 
solemnized in Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007 and the couple was 
living in Bangalore. Appellants 2 to 6-the parents and sisters 
of appellant No.1 were living in Vizianagaram. There are no 
specific allegations against appellants 2 to 6 that the dowry 
articles were entrusted to them and that they have not returned 
the dowry amount and the articles to the deceased. Equally, 
there are no allegations that those dowry articles were kept in 
Vizianagaram and used by appellants 2 to 6 who were separately 
living away from the couple in Bangalore. 
Even though 
complainant has alleged that the dowry amount was paid at the 
house of the accused at Gajapathinagaram, there are no specific 
allegations of entrustment of the dowry amount and articles to 
appellants 2 to 6. [Para 12] [110-A-B, H; 111-A] 
3. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about 
the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption 
that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the 
dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations 
so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry 
Prohibition Act. After marriage, the deceased and first appellant 
were living in Bangalore at their matrimonial house. In respect 
of 'stridhana articles' given to the bride, one has to take into 
consideration the common practice that these articles are sent 
along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of 
common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman 
in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by 
her in her matrimonial house when the appellants 2 to 6 have 
G been residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that 
the dowry was given to them and that they were duty bound to 
return the same to the deceased. Facts and circumstances of 
the case and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the 
complaint do not constitute an offence under Section 6 of the 
Dowry Prohibition Act against appellants 2 to 6 and there is no 
H sufficient ground for proceeding 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.