Gopal Kishan Sharma, J.
1. Budhprakash Non-petitioner No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Deeg against six persons under Section 4 of the Dowry Act, 1961. He alleged that the complainant offered to marry his daughter with Ashok Kumar son of Sohan Lal. This proposal was accepted and on 30-1-1983 the 'Rok' ceremony was held and the complainant paid some money to the boy Ashok Kumar for the ceremony. Thereafter Sohanlal performed the 'Goad' ceremony of the girl. Some 'Milni' etc., was also performed on that day. It is further alleged that Budhprakash was called by Sohanlal to Mathura and when he went to Mathura, Sohanlal demanded Rs. 31,000/- and also gave a list of the articles to be given in dowry in the marriage. He also told Budhprakash that if this dowry was not accepted the proposal for marriage would be dropped. The 'Pili-Chitthi' which was sent was also returned. It is further alleged that on 6-3-1983 Sohanlal, Ashok Kumar, Sunehrilal, Omprakash, Manoharlal and Sunder came to Deeg and again demanded the dowry as per their previous demand, which Budhprakash refused to give and the proposal of marriage was dropped.
2. The learned Magistrate after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. took cognizance against Sohanlal and Ashok Kumar. He dropped to take action against other persons, Sunerilal, Omprakash, Manohar Lal and Shayam Sunder. Against the order of taking cognizance, Ashok Kumar has filed this revision petition.
3. It is not disputed that after taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the accused Sohanlal has expired.
4. I have heard both the learned counsel and have perused the record of the lower Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tripurari Sharma argued that the dowry was demanded by Sohanlal at Mathura and the act was completed there. So, the offence, if at all committed by him, was committed at Mathura. The. Court at Deeg had no jurisdiction to try the case pertaining to Mathura, which is not in his jurisdiction. It was also argued that taking cognizance for two incidents, one taking place at Mathura and the other at Deeg cannot be tried together. It was also argued that if at all any dowry was demanded, it was demanded by Sohanlal and not by the petitioner Ashok Kumar. So, taking cognizance against Ashok Kumar is not correct.
5. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner Budhprakash argued that on 6-3-1983 all the six persons came to Deeg and there they demanded the dowry. So, Ashok Kumar, who was also present with Sohan Lal, is also responsible and liable for this offence. Therefore, taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate against Ashok Kumar is correct.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. The dowry was first demanded at Mathura where a list of articles was also given. So, the action was complete at Mathura. But on 6-3-1983 Sohanlal again came to Deeg and demanded dowry repeating the same demand made at Mathura. Therefore, the offence was committed at Deeg also. Therefore, the complaint could have also been filed at Deeg and the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in proceeding with this case. But the question is as to who is to be prosecuted for this offence. Sohanlal was the father of the accused Ashok Kumar, who has expired. Sohanlal had demanded the dowry and in the complaint it has been mentioned that on 6-3-1983 all the accused persons including Ashok Kumar to Deeg and they demanded dowry. It is a very vague allegation, because it has not been mentioned in the complaint that Ashok Kumar demanded the dowry. Apart from this, Budhprakash was examined under Section 200, Cr.P.C. where he has stated that on 6-3-1983 all the accused persons came to Deeg and told that the dowry has to be paid otherwise the marriage would not take place. As the dowry was not given, the proposal for marriage was dropped. In the statement he has not specifically mentioned the names of the accused who had demanded the dowry. This cannot be made the basis for taking action against Ashok Kumar. Suresh Chand was also examined under Section 202, Cr.P.C. He has stated that on 30-1-1983 the ceremony of 'Rok' and 'Goad' was performed and 'Milni' was also performed. So, at one time he gives the version which had happened on 30-1-1983 and at the other time he stated that on 6-3-1983 came to Deeg only. He has not stated as to who had come to Deeg on 6-3-1983. He should have specifically mentioned that Sohanlal and Ashok Kumar came to Deeg along with others. He has also stated that his father was called and demanded dowry. He has not named the person who had demanded the dowry. Therefore, the statement of Suresh Chand is a very vague statement and it cannot be said that Ashok Kumar demanded any dowry. As such, there was no basis for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance against Ashok Kumar. Even prima facie no case is made out against Ashok Kumar, and Sohanlal his father has expired. The learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence correctly and this is a clear abuse of the process of law. His finding is erroneous, incorrect and based on no evidence, which cannot be maintained.
7. Therefore, the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is accepted and order of the learned Magistrate dated 21-3-1984 and 18-6-1984 taking cognizance against Ashok Kumar is set aside. The record of the lower court be sent back forthwith.