Tripura High Court
Shri Manimay Nath vs State Of Tripura Represented By The ... on 13 November, 2025
-1-
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Crl. Petn. No.28 of 2025
1.Shri Manimay Nath, S/o Late Hari Krishna Nath, Resident
of Subhash Nagar, Pin- 799270, Po- Kanchanpur, North
Tripura District.
2.Smt. Mamata Nath, W/o Late Hari Krishna Nath, Resident
of Subhash Nagar, Pin- 799270, Po- kanchanpur, District-
North Tripura.
3.Shri Pradeep Debnath, S/o Late Deependra Kumar
Debnath, R/o Kanchanpur, PWD Water Complex at Subhash
Nagar, PO- Kanchanpur, District- North Tripura.
4.Smt. Shampa Nath, W/o Shri Pradeep Debnath, D/o Late
Hari Krishna Nath, Resident of Kanchanpur PWD Water
Complex at Subhash Nagar, PO- Kanchanpur, North Tripura,
District.
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.State of Tripura represented by the Public Prosecutor of
the High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
2.Smt. Debosmita Nath, W/o Shri Manimay Nath, D/o Shri
Rajan Nath, Resident of Subhash Nagar, PO- Kanchanpur,
District- North Tripura, Pin-799720.
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Keneth L.Debbarma, Advocate.
Mr. Dalit Kalai, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.Saha, Addl.PP.
Mr. Saugat Dutta, Advocate.
Ms. S.Nandy, Advocate.
Date of hearing and
delivery of Judgment : 13.11.2025
& Order
Whethr fit : Yes No
for Reporting
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
Judgment & Order(Oral)
Heard Ld. Counsel of both sides.
[2] This criminal petition is filed challenging the order
dated 05.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Sessions Judge,
North Tripura, Dharmanagar in Criminal Revision No.15 of
2023.
[3] Initially one complaint was lodged in the Court of
Ld. SDJM, Kanchanpur by the complainant, Smt. Debosmita
Nath (Respondent No.2) alleging mental as well physical
torture, demand of rupees one lakh as dowry etc. by the
present petitioners.
[4] Ld. Magistrate sent the said complaint to the
Kanchanpur Police Station for necessary investigation and
thereupon one FIR bearing Kanchanpur P.S. Case No.5 of
2023 was registered against them under Section 498A, 506,
307, 34 IPC which ultimately culminated into submission of a
Charge sheet against all the 4 petitioners under Section
498A/506/34 IPC and also under Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
[5] In course of the proceeding, Ld. Trial Court
framed charges against all the petitioners under Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, u/s 498A/34 IPC and under Section
506 /34 IPC. The petitioners, being aggrieved thereby,
challenged the fact of framing of charges against them before
the Ld. Sessions Judge, North Tripura in Crl. Rev. No. 15 of
2023 which was also dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Judge on
05.02.2025 with the observation that the Investigating
Officer, during the investigation, examined a good number of
witnesses and the statements of these witnesses prima facie
revealed the materials under Section 498A/ 506 and 34, IPC
as well as under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
[6] Being again aggrieved thereby, the present
petition has been preferred by all the said petitioners.
[7] Ld. Counsel Mr. K. L. Debbarma of the petitioner
submits that there is no prima facie case made out against
the petitioners under Section 498A and 506 IPC and also
under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in the
investigation, but despite the same, erroneously Ld.
Magistrate framed charges against all the petitioners and Ld.
Sessions Judge has also affirmed the same in the revision.
[8] Ld. Counsel also submits that so far the charge
framed under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act is
concerned, there is no specific assertion made by any of the
witnesses that the so called demand of rupees one lakh by
them was in connection with the marriage of the parties and
therefore, the charge under said head, in no way, can be
sustained.
[9] To buttress his submission, Ld. Counsel relies on a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in
Appasaheb and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra
[(2007) 9 SCC 721], and the relevant paragraph Nos. 10
and 11, as referred by Ld. Counsel, are extracted hereunder:
"10. Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act reads as
under:-
"2. Definition of "dowry" - In this Act "dowry"
means any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party
to the marriage; or
(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or
by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before or
any time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of the said parties, but does not
include dowry or mahr in the case of persons to
whom the Muslim Personal Law (shariat)
applies.
11. In view of the aforesaid definition of the
word "dowry" any property or valuable security
should be given or agreed to be given either
directly or indirectly at or before or any time
after the marriage and in connection with the
marriage of the said parties. Therefore, the
giving or taking of property or valuable security
must have some connection with the marriage of
the parties and a correlation between the giving
or taking of property or valuable security with
the marriage of the parties is essential. Being a
penal provision it has to be strictly construed.
Dowry is a fairly well known social custom or
practice in India. It is well settled principle of
interpretation of Statute that if the Act is passed
with reference to a particular trade, business or
transaction and words are used which everybody
conversant with that trade, business or
transaction knows or understands to have a
particular meaning in it, then the words are to
be construed as having that particular meaning.
(See Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd., AIR
(1996) SC 3509 and Chemicals and Fibres of
India v. Union of India, AIR (1997) SC 558). A
demand for money on account of some financial
stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic
expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be
termed as a demand for dowry as the said word
is normally understood. The evidence adduced
by the prosecution does not, therefore, show
that any demand for "dowry" as defined in
Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made
by the appellants as what was allegedly asked
for was some money for meeting domestic
expenses and for purchasing manure. Since an
essential ingredient of Section 304-B IPC viz.
demand for dowry is not established, the
conviction of the appellants cannot be
sustained."
[10] Ld. Addl. PP. Mr. R. Saha, however, fairly submits
that prima facie there is no material came out during the
investigation to frame charge u/s 506 IPC. But there are
sufficient materials both in connection with commission of
offences under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
[11] Ld. Addl. PP also submits that any demand, as per
the definition of dowry as given in Section 2 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, covers even the demands made after
marriage without citing any reason, if it is made in relation to
or as consideration for the marriage and in the present case
such materials are there, though not in specific term that it
was made in connection with marriage.
[12] Ld. Addl. PP also relies on a decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of AP
[(1996)4 SCC 596] wherein, at paragraph 18, it was
observed by the Apex Court that while interpreting the
expression 'dowry and' 'demand' in the context of the
scheme of the Act, any 'demand' of 'dowry' made before, at
or after the marriage where such demand is made as a
consideration for marriage would attract the provisions of
Section 4 of the Act.
[13] Ld. Counsel, Smt. S. Nandy for respondent No.2,
however, submits that there are also even materials to frame
charge under section 506 IPC in the record and therefore, Ld.
Trial Court was completely justified in framing the charges
under above said offences against all the petitioners.
[14] This Court has considered the submissions of all
the sides and has also gone through the materials placed in
the record. On perusal of the record of investigation, it
appears that there are prima facie materials to frame charge
against all the petitioners under Section 498A IPC. Though in
so many words, none of the witnesses has clarified that the
demand of rupees one lakh was in relation to or as a
consideration for the marriage. However, the victim in her
statement has stated that the said demand was a dowry
demand without further explaining as to how it was a dowry
demand. Anyway, at this stage, the micro level scrutiny is
not possible to examine whether such statement will coverup
the application of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act or not,
rather appropriate time for such scrutiny would be after the
recording of evidence is compete and parties are finally heard
on merit of the case.
[15] In view of the above discussions, the criminal
petition is partly allowed.
[16] The charge framed under Section 506/34 IPC by
Ld. Trial Court against all the petitioners is quashed.
However, the Trial Court will proceed with the trial of the
case for charges under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961 and Section 498A IPC in accordance with law.
[17] The impugned order passed by Ld. Sessions Judge
is accordingly partly set aside.
[18] Reconsign the records of Ld. Courts below with
copies of this judgment.
[19] The Crl. Petn. is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
JUDGE
Saikat Sarma
RUDRADEE Digitally signed by
RUDRADEEP BANERJEE
P BANERJEE Date: 2025.11.15 15:41:31
+05'30'
