When FIR can be quashed for offence relating breaking of marriage engagement?

Here, in the instant case, it has never been the case of
the complainant that upon fraudulent or dishonest inducement
the complainant parted with money, rather, the simple case to
which the complainant came forth, is that settlement of marriage
on being broken, the accused promised to pay a sum of Rs.5
lakhs, which the accused did not pay and thereby it becomes a
pure case of breach of contract, if any, and hence, question of
attracting offence of cheating does not arise.
 Similarly, case of defamation is also not made out as
it has never been the case of the complainant that any imputation
was made against the complainant or her family members to
harm her reputation. Allegation what is there is that the accused
No.1 sent several messages on the mobile of son of the
complainant asking her to cancel the marriage, which allegation
does not have ingredients for constituting offence of defamation as
has been defined under Section 499. Similarly, nothing appears to
be there in the complaint to constitute an offence of criminal
intimidation as has been defined under Section 503 of the IPC, as
no such allegation is there to the effect that the accused did
threat either to the complainant or her family members with an
injury or to her reputation or property with intention to cause
alarm to the complainant or other or to cause that person to do 
any act which he is not likely bound to do so. Thus, there appears
to be no allegation whatsoever to the effect that the accused did
ever threat the complainant to injure her reputation and thereby
offence of criminal intimidation also does not get attracted. Under
the circumstances, the First Information Report warrants to be
quashed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRIL PETITION NO.20 OF 2015
Tekcham Romita Devi V State of Manipur 
BEFORE
 MR.JUSTICE RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD
Dated:6-4-2016
Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)207 Manipur

Print Page

Whether petition for recovery of money given at the time of engagement is maintainable before family court?

In my humble opinion, the bare reading of
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 indicates
that if parties have agreed to enter into the marriage
on the future date, they shall be known as “parties to
a marriage” for the reason that any item or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either before the
marriage or at the time of marriage or after the
marriage shall be “dowry”.
It is nowhere denied by the defendant either in
this petition or in the application moved under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC that Rs. 2 lakhs were not given to him
by way of bank draft by the plaintiff/respondent,
herein to purchase the car so that car may be used by
them after the marriage. It is also not denied that
marriage was fixed between the parties to be
solemnized on 20.11.2003. Therefore, in my humble
opinion, parties to the plaint are parties to a marriage. 9
Since, as per the contents of the plaint, Rs. 2
lakhs were given by one of the parties to the marriage
i.e. the plaintiff in favour of another party to the
marriage i.e. defendant, therefore, for the recovery of
the amount, suit under Section 7, Explanation (c) of
the Family Courts Act is very well maintainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1277 of 2005

Uma Shanker Sharma  Vs  Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur and another

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. R
Citation; AIR 2015(NOC)855 UTR

Print Page

Whether money given at the time of engagement amounts to dowry?

In my humble opinion, the bare reading of
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 indicates
that if parties have agreed to enter into the marriage
on the future date, they shall be known as “parties to
a marriage” for the reason that any item or valuable
security given or agreed to be given either before the
marriage or at the time of marriage or after the
marriage shall be “dowry”.
It is nowhere denied by the defendant either in
this petition or in the application moved under Order
7 Rule 11 CPC that Rs. 2 lakhs were not given to him
by way of bank draft by the plaintiff/respondent,
herein to purchase the car so that car may be used by
them after the marriage. It is also not denied that
marriage was fixed between the parties to be
solemnized on 20.11.2003. Therefore, in my humble
opinion, parties to the plaint are parties to a marriage. 9
Since, as per the contents of the plaint, Rs. 2
lakhs were given by one of the parties to the marriage
i.e. the plaintiff in favour of another party to the
marriage i.e. defendant, therefore, for the recovery of
the amount, suit under Section 7, Explanation (c) of
the Family Courts Act is very well maintainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 1277 of 2005

Uma Shanker Sharma  Vs  Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur


Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. R
Citation; AIR 2015(NOC) 855 UTR

Print Page

Whether Gifts given to wife at the time of engagement ceremony is her stridhan property?

 Coming to the plea of wife which was negatived by the learned trial Judge that items given at the time of "engagement cannot be returned, in my opinion deserves to be upset. The Trial Court held that the items given at the time of engagement (Sagai) cannot be termed as Stridhan property of a woman. I do not agree. In my opinion, the Trial Court on this issue committed an error. Any item article given by parents of a woman i.e. mother or/and father to their daughter at the time of engagement is in fact the nature of a gift and partake a status of a Stridhan. It becomes her exclusive property. In Manu Smriti, while enumerating six kinds of Stridhan, it is recognised that gift made before nupital fire to mean gift made at the time of marriage and that gifts made at the bridal procession, i.e. before the bride is taken to the residence of her husband are Stridhan property of a woman. An engagement ceremony is in fact a part of marriage which takes place just prior to marriage.

 In my opinion, 1 have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff as also that of her father on this issue. It is reasonable to infer that these items were given to girl (plaintiff) by her parents, whereas, Rs. 21,000/- was meant to husband. After all, in engagement ceremony, parents of girl do give some jewellery to their daughter and some to son-in-law. It has come in evidence that plaintiff's father had means to earn as also to spend. He had a capacity to purchase these gold and silver ornaments. Merely because no account were kept to show its purchase does not lead to a conclusion that they were not purchased. These are not purchases meant for running the business. In Hindu marriages these are the bear minimum that every parents of a girl are required to spend. In my opinion, the six silver glasses, one golden chain and ring were gifted to plaintiff by her parents and the same become plaintiff's Stridhan property entitling her to claim back from the defendant either in specie or in the alternative its value which works out to Rs. 5,750/-. So far as payment of Rs. 21,000/- is concerned, the same was negatived by the Trial Court. In my opinion, even assuming it is held to be proved then it was meant for defendant and hence no claim can be made by the plaintiff on Rs. 21,000/- as her Stridhan property.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajkumar Patni vs Smt. Manorama Patni on 14 July, 2000

Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 702

Print Page