In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, quashed the FIR registered against Kamaljeet Singh and others under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, due to the absence of prior sanction from the District Magistrate. The judgment reinforces the legal necessity for prosecutorial sanction in dowry cases, as mandated by Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Case Background
The case, registered as CRM-M-40527-2023, revolves around allegations made by Surjan Singh against Kamaljeet Singh, who was set to marry his daughter, Kuldeep Kaur. Surjan Singh alleged that after arranging the wedding and distributing invitations, the accused demanded a dowry of Rs. 25 lakhs as a precondition for the marriage. The FIR No. 16 was lodged on February 18, 2023, at Police Station Chhajli, District Sangrur, Punjab.
Key Legal Issues
The primary legal contention raised by the petitioners was the absence of prior sanction from the District Magistrate for the prosecution, as required under Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the FIR and subsequent proceedings were invalid due to this procedural lapse.
The legal issue centered on whether the FIR could be registered and prosecution initiated without the mandatory prior sanction. The petitioners relied on several precedents, including ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr., 2006(4) RCR (Criminal) 947’, which clarified that prosecution encompasses the initiation of criminal proceedings, including FIR registration, requiring prior sanction.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi emphasized the statutory requirement under Section 8-A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, highlighting that no prosecution could be instituted without prior sanction from the District Magistrate or a designated officer. He quoted from the Supreme Court ruling in ‘State, CBI versus Sashi Balasubramanian & Anr.’, where it was observed that the term ‘prosecution’ includes the institution or commencement of a criminal proceeding, which, in this case, would encompass the FIR registration.
The court noted:
“As in the instant case, the FIR has been 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.”
Justice Bedi further reinforced this position by citing other related judgments, including ‘State of Haryana versus Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604’, which outlines circumstances under which proceedings can be quashed, including where a legal bar explicitly prevents the continuation of prosecution.
In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, quashing FIR No. 16 dated February 18, 2023, and all consequential proceedings, including the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. dated June 12, 2023.
Legal Representation and Parties Involved
The petitioners, Kamaljeet Singh and others, were represented by Advocate Mr. Kanwal Goyal. The State of Punjab was represented by Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Dhaliwal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. An Amicus Curiae, Mr. Aarav Gupta, appeared for respondent No. 2, presumably the complainant.
