In a strange turn of events, a man appealed an order denying his plea request criminal action against his wife’s family for giving her dowry without a demand, but failed to convince the court.

Additional Sessions Judge Navjeet Budhiraja heard the man’s review plea against a July 2022 order of the trial court rejecting his application for an FIR against his wife’s parents and brother for giving dowry. It was also found that the man was facing a case of cruelty from his wife’s family.

“Until the evidence is adduced by both the parties during the trial, the issue whether dowry was demanded or not cannot be effectively adjudicated and thus, at this stage, the contention of the revisionist (Kumar) that he never demanded any dowry from the respondents and , despite this fact, an amount of ₹25,000 and ₹46,500 was transferred to his account would be a self-serving statement,” the court said.

In an order delivered on October 5, Justice Budhiraja noted that his in-laws had already registered an FIR against him under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting a married woman to cruelty) of the IPC.

The court said the magistrate’s observations on the man’s complaint that the in-laws while registering the FIR categorically admitted that they had paid dowry to Kumar and such an admission constituted an offense under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Section 3 of the act provides punishment for giving or taking dowry.

The court further recorded the magistrate’s observation that Kumar concealed the fact that his wife and in-laws had made “serious allegations of persistent dowry demand” against him in the FIR.

Order rejection:

It noted that the magistrate’s order of revocation stated, “His (Kumar’s) repeated claims in the present complaint that he never demanded dowry and despite the absence of such demands, dowry was given, is baseless and appears to be an “attempt to deceive this court”. .”

The court said the issues raised by the man were “appropriately addressed” by the magistrate.

Therefore, no illegality was found in the magistrate’s order.