Criminal P.C. 1973 - S.482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 323, 504, 506 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Ss. 3, 4 - for establishment of case of demand of dowry, that must co-relate with the marriage or pre-marriage stage and not every demand made by the applicants after marriage will come within the purview of dowry.

It may be to meet some other financial scarcity or to meet some emergent family expenses. Therefore, allegation levelled in the complaint for demand of dowry is not sustainable in the eye of law. Secondly, so far as allegation against the applicants are concenred, that is also absolutely in the teeth of law laid down by the Apex Court and it is very much clear that there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants and allegations are also levelled upon the applicants, who are even not residing along with applicant No. 1. In fact, it is necessarily required to make specific allegation against each and every applicants whose names are mentioned in the complaint or FIR in the matrimonial cases which is absolutely missing in this case. Therefore, in the light of facts and law laid down by the Apex Court, the allegation of dowry as well as harrasment is not sustainable. Accordingly, the proceeding of Case No. 3609/9 of 2004 (Rajeshwari Saxena vs. Shivendra Raizada and others), under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Katghar, District Moradabad is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.

Facts of the Case

In complaint dated 15.04.2004, it has been clearly stated that Rs. 80,000/- was demanded for maintenance of clinic and further in complaint, there is no specific allegation against any of the applicants except general and vague allegations, who are the family members i.e. applicant no.1-husband, applicant Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are brothers of the applicant-huband and applicant No. 7 is the father of applicant-husband and even some of the brothers of husband are not residing with him.