Dowry Prohibition Act | Case Cannot Be Instituted Without Sanction From District Magistrate: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that a case under the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be instituted without prior sanction of the District Magistrate.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi said, "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."

The Court was hearing a plea under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR lodged in 2023 under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

According to the prosecution, the complaint was filed by a man alleging that he had got fixed the marriage of his daughter with accused-petitioner in 2022. The accused allegedly 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.

It was submitted that A Panchayat was convened and respectably reached the house of the accused persons where they again reiterated their demand for a dowry of Rs.25 lacs, upon which, they would perform the marriage of their son with his daughter. Therefore, it was alleged that the accused had committed the offence in question for which they were liable to be prosecuted.

Based on the investigation conducted, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C was submitted.

Counsel for the petitioner contended 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

After hearing the submissions, the Court examined the provisions of Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as applicable to the State of Punjab.

According to Section 8-A, "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."

Reliance was placed on 'State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., 2007(2) Crimes 91', wherein the Apex Court considered "as to when did a prosecution begin".

The Supreme Court held that the term 'prosecution' would include the institution or commencement of a criminal proceeding and would also include an inquiry and an investigation.

The Court noted that in the present case, the FIR was 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.

In light of the above, the FIR and the consequential proceedings were quashed.

Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aarav Gupta, Advocate, (Amicus Curiae), for respondent No.2.

Title: Kamaljeet Singh and ors. v. State of Punjab and anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 223

Click here to read/download the order