From the perusal of material on record, it appears that the victim has died in an unnatural way which is lucid from the medical evidence. The retention of Stridhan by the applicants given at the time of marriage to the deceased constitutes a criminal breach of trust. The applicants have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust hence they are liable to be prosecuted under section 406 IPC. Much prior to the acquittal of the five applicants (i.e. 15.9.93) the first information report was lodged under section 406 IPC against the husband and in-law's on 21.2.1992, therefore, the applicant cannot avail the benefit of their acquittal as the death of the daughter of the complainant had occurred in her matrimonial house in mysterious circumstances. In such circumstances where the marriage has not been denied, the question is whether the father of the girl is entitled to claim the articles which were given to her at the time of marriage or in other words the in-laws including the husband have any moral obligation to return the same to the parents of the deceased. Now the applicants have deliberately and purposely not made the complainant as one of the party in the instant application. After lapse of about 19 years, permitting the applicants to implead the complainant, the father of the deceased as one of the party would elongate the proceedings for eternity. This lacunae cannot be made good after lapse of such a long period. The application for impleadment has been filed on 21.5.2012 ,therefore, the impleadment application is hereby rejected outright. Petitioner :- T.K. Jain
Respondent :- State of allahabadCase :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6565 of 1993
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and have been taken through the record.
The instant application has been filed invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the Criminal Case No.4086 of 1992, arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 1992 (State Vs. Tarun Kumar & others), under section 406 IPC, Police Station Lalkurti, Meerut, wherein learned VIth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the applicants and has issued non-bailable warrant on 15.4.1993.
The instant application was placed before another Bench of this Court on 11.5.1993 and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order :-
"Heard.
Learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of the State of U.P. He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
List for admission on 5th August 1993.
Until 30th August 1993, further proceedings in Criminal case No.4086 of 1992 (State Vs. Tarun Kumar & others) under section 406 IPC Crime No.55 of 1992 P.S. Lalkurti Meerut pending in the court of Vth Addl. C.J.M. Meerut shall remain stayed."
Before appreciating the case on merits, it is necessary to elaborate some facts since this application has come up for hearing after lapse of 19 years. During the pendency of this application on 11.1.2012, the applicants no.7 & 10 have died. In this regard, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by Trilok Chand Jain, the applicant no.2. It has also been averred in the supplementary affidavit that Jagmohan, the complainant had lodged a first information report against the applicants no.1 to 5 who are husband, father in law, sister in law and brother in law of the deceased respectively under section 302/34, 498A/304B/404 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings were initiated against the said applicants and the trial court vide order dated 15.9.1993 acquitted all the accused persons. The order of acquittal dated 15.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Gurgaon, Haryana was challenged by State of Punjab & Haryana before High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh was pleased to dismiss the State appeal vide order dated 30.5.2007, whereby the order of acquittal dated 15.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge was affirmed. The order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the High Court Punjab & Haryana was neither challenged by the State of Punjab & Haryana nor by the complainant before Hon'ble Apex Court. The complainant opted to prosecute ten persons including the applicants no.1 to 5 who were arrayed in the earlier first information report dated 11.12.1991 by lodging another first information report on 21.2.1992 under section 406 IPC for the return of Stridhan vide Case Crime No.55 of 1992 Police Station Lalkurti Meerut. The applicant no.1 is husband and the other applicants are the members of his family. After registration of the case, the investigating officer swung into action and submitted charge sheet against them on 28.8.1992. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial under section 406 IPC. The applicants did not appear before the learned Judge pursuant to the summoning order thus the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants vide order dated 15.4.1993.
The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants no.1 to 5 have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge , Gurgaon vide order dated 15.9.1993 in an offence under section 302/34, 498A/304B & 404 IPC. The subsequent first information report under section 406 IPC was lodged by the complainant after much deliberation and consultation. The Hon'ble High Court has granted indulgence to the applicants by staying the proceedings. After lapse of 19 years, it would be travesty of law to prosecute the applicants to face trial under section 406 IPC. The initial first information report under section 302/34,498A/304B & 404 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged on 11.12.1991 by the complainant alleging therein that the death of victim had occurred on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The victim was subjected to persecution and harassment on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry by the applicant no.1(husband) and the other family members. The learned trial Judge after considering the prosecution case and the evidence acquitted the applicants no.1 to 5. The appeal preferred by the State of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana which amply shows that the applicants were not responsible in any manner for the death of the daughter of the complainant. The applicant no.1 is the husband and he is entitled to possess Stridhan of his deceased wife Smt. Shalini Devi who had committed suicide out of depression. There was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicants. In the earlier first information report under section 302/34/498A/404 IPC only five persons were named. In the subsequent first information report ten persons were named which itself shows that the complainant has lodged the first information report under section 406 IPC with an ulterior motive of dragging all the family members in the criminal proceedings. There is no question of breach of trust on the part of the applicants. The deceased was legally wedded wife of the applicant no.1 and the charges that the applicants have misappropriated the articles given to her at the time of marriage, are absolutely baseless. The applicants no.1 & 2, who are husband and father in law were arrested on 12.12.1991. The applicants no.3,4 & 5 were arrested on 15.12.1991. They were released on bail. The applicant no.2 had returned about 17 articles including scooter, washing machine etc. to the complainant with regard to which receipt was also given. The ornaments which were found on the body of the deceased were also returned to the complainant by the police on the application of the complainant moved before the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 3.1.1992. In the first information report lodged under section 406 IPC, the complainant had not made any whisper with regard to the return of ornaments by the police. The first information report has been lodged by the complainant very adeptly so as to put undue pressure upon the applicants to return the alleged articles of the deceased according to their carte blanche. In fact all the articles which were demanded by the complainant were already returned. In the first information report those persons have been made accused who have nothing to do with the Stridhan. It cannot be said that it was given in their entrustment and they all have misappropriated the same. The applicants had approached by means of criminal writ petition before Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicants considering the nature of allegations and the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken by the court below and the non-bailable warrants were issued, the applicants have approached this Court by means of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to stay the further proceedings.
It is further stressed by learned counsel for the applicants that according to the Hindu Customs, after the death of the wife, all her endowments will devolve upon the husband. The complainant has no right to stake his claim upon the endowments of his daughter after her death. After lapse of more than 19 years, the continuation of prosecution of the applicants under section 406 IPC would be clear travesty of justice. In case all the allegations made in the first information report on its face value be taken to be true ,even then it cannot be said that there was any breach of entrustment on the part of applicants. It is not disclosed in the first information report that all the persons were entrusted with the endowments of the deceased. To prove the offence of criminal breach of trust proof of entrustment is essential. Without proof of entrustment, there can be no question of accused being found guilty of the offence under section 406 IPC. There should be specific allegations against each and every person so as to make out an offence under section 406 IPC . Asking entire family to stand trial merely because they are relatives of the husband is neither judicious nor will foster cause of justice. During pendency of this application, two persons have died and re-opening of criminal prosecution after 19 years would be sheer an abuse of process of law . All the accused persons have already been acquitted on the serious charge under section 302/34, 498, 304B, 404 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants may be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA contended that the application filed by the applicants under section 482 Cr.P.C. is itself defective. The applicants have not arrayed necessary party in the present application and have succeeded to obtain an ex-parte order. The astounding fact of the case is that under what circumstances, the counsel on behalf of the complainant has appeared. The criminal breach of trust is a continuing offence and the provisions of section 472 Cr.P.C. would be attracted. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet after collecting material evidence against the accused persons. It is an established fact that the victim had died at her matrimonial house. The acquittal of the accused persons in another proceedings under section 302/34,498A,304B,404 IPC would not exonerate the applicants from being prosecuted under section 406 IPC. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants under section 406 IPC as the applicants were entrusted with dominion over the property of victim. Mere pendency of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for about 19 years will not exculpate the applicants from being prosecuted in the instant case they had failed to inform the Court about their acquittal in dowry death case in 1993 by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in 2007. Hence in this manner mere long pendency of the application would not be a good ground to quash the proceedings against the applicants thus this application deserves to be rejected in toto.
From the perusal of material on record, it appears that the victim has died in an unnatural way which is lucid from the medical evidence. The retention of Stridhan by the applicants given at the time of marriage to the deceased constitutes a criminal breach of trust. The applicants have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust hence they are liable to be prosecuted under section 406 IPC. Much prior to the acquittal of the five applicants (i.e. 15.9.93) the first information report was lodged under section 406 IPC against the husband and in-law's on 21.2.1992, therefore, the applicant cannot avail the benefit of their acquittal as the death of the daughter of the complainant had occurred in her matrimonial house in mysterious circumstances. In such circumstances where the marriage has not been denied, the question is whether the father of the girl is entitled to claim the articles which were given to her at the time of marriage or in other words the in-laws including the husband have any moral obligation to return the same to the parents of the deceased. Now the applicants have deliberately and purposely not made the complainant as one of the party in the instant application. After lapse of about 19 years, permitting the applicants to implead the complainant, the father of the deceased as one of the party would elongate the proceedings for eternity. This lacunae cannot be made good after lapse of such a long period. The application for impleadment has been filed on 21.5.2012 ,therefore, the impleadment application is hereby rejected outright.
Before parting with the case, it is congruous to elaborate the controversy dealing with "Stridhan" a woman's power of disposal, independent of her husband's control which is not confined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: "A woman's maintenance (vritti), ornaments, perquisites (sulka), gains (labha), are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress." In N.R. Raghavachariar's Hindu Law -- Principles and Precedents, (8th Edn.) edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman, one of the renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals with "Definition of Stridhana". In para 469 dealing with "Sources of acquisition" it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a woman's possession are: gifts before marriage, wedding gifts, gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with "Gifts to a maiden". Para 471 deals with "Wedding gifts" and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride, whether by relations or strangers, either Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika, are the bride's stridhana. In para 481 at page 426, it is stated that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with "powers during coverture" it is stated that saudayika meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof. In the instant case, the allegation would attract the definition of breach of trust with within the meaning of section 405 IPC. Entrustment of some properties and dominion over them is attributed to the applicants hence having considered the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie case under section 406 IPC has been made out and this Court is of the view that pendency of this application would not serve any useful purpose .
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The applicants are free to take all the submissions before the trial court. This Court does not see any good ground to quash the proceedings pending against the applicants. This application has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is hereby vacated. The court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and conclude the trial if possible within six months avoiding unnecessary adjournments by applying provision of section 309 Cr.P.C. A copy of this order be sent to the court below for compliance.
Order Date :- 19.10.2012
Print Page
Respondent :- State of allahabadCase :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6565 of 1993
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and have been taken through the record.
The instant application has been filed invoking inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the Criminal Case No.4086 of 1992, arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 1992 (State Vs. Tarun Kumar & others), under section 406 IPC, Police Station Lalkurti, Meerut, wherein learned VIth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance against the applicants and has issued non-bailable warrant on 15.4.1993.
The instant application was placed before another Bench of this Court on 11.5.1993 and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order :-
"Heard.
Learned AGA accepts notice on behalf of the State of U.P. He prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit.
List for admission on 5th August 1993.
Until 30th August 1993, further proceedings in Criminal case No.4086 of 1992 (State Vs. Tarun Kumar & others) under section 406 IPC Crime No.55 of 1992 P.S. Lalkurti Meerut pending in the court of Vth Addl. C.J.M. Meerut shall remain stayed."
Before appreciating the case on merits, it is necessary to elaborate some facts since this application has come up for hearing after lapse of 19 years. During the pendency of this application on 11.1.2012, the applicants no.7 & 10 have died. In this regard, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by Trilok Chand Jain, the applicant no.2. It has also been averred in the supplementary affidavit that Jagmohan, the complainant had lodged a first information report against the applicants no.1 to 5 who are husband, father in law, sister in law and brother in law of the deceased respectively under section 302/34, 498A/304B/404 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The proceedings were initiated against the said applicants and the trial court vide order dated 15.9.1993 acquitted all the accused persons. The order of acquittal dated 15.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Gurgaon, Haryana was challenged by State of Punjab & Haryana before High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh was pleased to dismiss the State appeal vide order dated 30.5.2007, whereby the order of acquittal dated 15.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge was affirmed. The order dated 30.5.2007 passed by the High Court Punjab & Haryana was neither challenged by the State of Punjab & Haryana nor by the complainant before Hon'ble Apex Court. The complainant opted to prosecute ten persons including the applicants no.1 to 5 who were arrayed in the earlier first information report dated 11.12.1991 by lodging another first information report on 21.2.1992 under section 406 IPC for the return of Stridhan vide Case Crime No.55 of 1992 Police Station Lalkurti Meerut. The applicant no.1 is husband and the other applicants are the members of his family. After registration of the case, the investigating officer swung into action and submitted charge sheet against them on 28.8.1992. The learned Magistrate on the basis of the charge sheet took cognizance and summoned the applicants to face trial under section 406 IPC. The applicants did not appear before the learned Judge pursuant to the summoning order thus the learned Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant against the applicants vide order dated 15.4.1993.
The main thrust of argument of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants no.1 to 5 have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge , Gurgaon vide order dated 15.9.1993 in an offence under section 302/34, 498A/304B & 404 IPC. The subsequent first information report under section 406 IPC was lodged by the complainant after much deliberation and consultation. The Hon'ble High Court has granted indulgence to the applicants by staying the proceedings. After lapse of 19 years, it would be travesty of law to prosecute the applicants to face trial under section 406 IPC. The initial first information report under section 302/34,498A/304B & 404 IPC read with section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged on 11.12.1991 by the complainant alleging therein that the death of victim had occurred on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. The victim was subjected to persecution and harassment on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry by the applicant no.1(husband) and the other family members. The learned trial Judge after considering the prosecution case and the evidence acquitted the applicants no.1 to 5. The appeal preferred by the State of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana which amply shows that the applicants were not responsible in any manner for the death of the daughter of the complainant. The applicant no.1 is the husband and he is entitled to possess Stridhan of his deceased wife Smt. Shalini Devi who had committed suicide out of depression. There was no demand of dowry from the side of the applicants. In the earlier first information report under section 302/34/498A/404 IPC only five persons were named. In the subsequent first information report ten persons were named which itself shows that the complainant has lodged the first information report under section 406 IPC with an ulterior motive of dragging all the family members in the criminal proceedings. There is no question of breach of trust on the part of the applicants. The deceased was legally wedded wife of the applicant no.1 and the charges that the applicants have misappropriated the articles given to her at the time of marriage, are absolutely baseless. The applicants no.1 & 2, who are husband and father in law were arrested on 12.12.1991. The applicants no.3,4 & 5 were arrested on 15.12.1991. They were released on bail. The applicant no.2 had returned about 17 articles including scooter, washing machine etc. to the complainant with regard to which receipt was also given. The ornaments which were found on the body of the deceased were also returned to the complainant by the police on the application of the complainant moved before the Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 3.1.1992. In the first information report lodged under section 406 IPC, the complainant had not made any whisper with regard to the return of ornaments by the police. The first information report has been lodged by the complainant very adeptly so as to put undue pressure upon the applicants to return the alleged articles of the deceased according to their carte blanche. In fact all the articles which were demanded by the complainant were already returned. In the first information report those persons have been made accused who have nothing to do with the Stridhan. It cannot be said that it was given in their entrustment and they all have misappropriated the same. The applicants had approached by means of criminal writ petition before Division Bench of this Court and the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to stay the arrest of the applicants considering the nature of allegations and the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken by the court below and the non-bailable warrants were issued, the applicants have approached this Court by means of application under section 482 Cr.P.C. and the Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to stay the further proceedings.
It is further stressed by learned counsel for the applicants that according to the Hindu Customs, after the death of the wife, all her endowments will devolve upon the husband. The complainant has no right to stake his claim upon the endowments of his daughter after her death. After lapse of more than 19 years, the continuation of prosecution of the applicants under section 406 IPC would be clear travesty of justice. In case all the allegations made in the first information report on its face value be taken to be true ,even then it cannot be said that there was any breach of entrustment on the part of applicants. It is not disclosed in the first information report that all the persons were entrusted with the endowments of the deceased. To prove the offence of criminal breach of trust proof of entrustment is essential. Without proof of entrustment, there can be no question of accused being found guilty of the offence under section 406 IPC. There should be specific allegations against each and every person so as to make out an offence under section 406 IPC . Asking entire family to stand trial merely because they are relatives of the husband is neither judicious nor will foster cause of justice. During pendency of this application, two persons have died and re-opening of criminal prosecution after 19 years would be sheer an abuse of process of law . All the accused persons have already been acquitted on the serious charge under section 302/34, 498, 304B, 404 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants may be quashed.
Per contra learned AGA contended that the application filed by the applicants under section 482 Cr.P.C. is itself defective. The applicants have not arrayed necessary party in the present application and have succeeded to obtain an ex-parte order. The astounding fact of the case is that under what circumstances, the counsel on behalf of the complainant has appeared. The criminal breach of trust is a continuing offence and the provisions of section 472 Cr.P.C. would be attracted. The investigating officer has submitted the charge sheet after collecting material evidence against the accused persons. It is an established fact that the victim had died at her matrimonial house. The acquittal of the accused persons in another proceedings under section 302/34,498A,304B,404 IPC would not exonerate the applicants from being prosecuted under section 406 IPC. Prima facie offence is made out against the applicants under section 406 IPC as the applicants were entrusted with dominion over the property of victim. Mere pendency of the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for about 19 years will not exculpate the applicants from being prosecuted in the instant case they had failed to inform the Court about their acquittal in dowry death case in 1993 by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court in 2007. Hence in this manner mere long pendency of the application would not be a good ground to quash the proceedings against the applicants thus this application deserves to be rejected in toto.
From the perusal of material on record, it appears that the victim has died in an unnatural way which is lucid from the medical evidence. The retention of Stridhan by the applicants given at the time of marriage to the deceased constitutes a criminal breach of trust. The applicants have committed an offence of criminal breach of trust hence they are liable to be prosecuted under section 406 IPC. Much prior to the acquittal of the five applicants (i.e. 15.9.93) the first information report was lodged under section 406 IPC against the husband and in-law's on 21.2.1992, therefore, the applicant cannot avail the benefit of their acquittal as the death of the daughter of the complainant had occurred in her matrimonial house in mysterious circumstances. In such circumstances where the marriage has not been denied, the question is whether the father of the girl is entitled to claim the articles which were given to her at the time of marriage or in other words the in-laws including the husband have any moral obligation to return the same to the parents of the deceased. Now the applicants have deliberately and purposely not made the complainant as one of the party in the instant application. After lapse of about 19 years, permitting the applicants to implead the complainant, the father of the deceased as one of the party would elongate the proceedings for eternity. This lacunae cannot be made good after lapse of such a long period. The application for impleadment has been filed on 21.5.2012 ,therefore, the impleadment application is hereby rejected outright.
Before parting with the case, it is congruous to elaborate the controversy dealing with "Stridhan" a woman's power of disposal, independent of her husband's control which is not confined to saudayika but extends to other properties as well. Devala says: "A woman's maintenance (vritti), ornaments, perquisites (sulka), gains (labha), are her stridhana. She herself has the exclusive right to enjoy it. Her husband has no right to use it except in distress." In N.R. Raghavachariar's Hindu Law -- Principles and Precedents, (8th Edn.) edited by Prof. S. Venkataraman, one of the renowned Professors of Hindu Law para 468 deals with "Definition of Stridhana". In para 469 dealing with "Sources of acquisition" it is stated that the sources of acquisition of property in a woman's possession are: gifts before marriage, wedding gifts, gifts subsequent to marriage etc. Para 470 deals with "Gifts to a maiden". Para 471 deals with "Wedding gifts" and it is stated therein that properties gifted at the time of marriage to the bride, whether by relations or strangers, either Adhiyagni or Adhyavahanika, are the bride's stridhana. In para 481 at page 426, it is stated that ornaments presented to the bride by her husband or father constitute her Stridhana property. In para 487 dealing with "powers during coverture" it is stated that saudayika meaning the gift of affectionate kindred, includes both Yautaka or gifts received at the time of marriage as well as its negative Ayautaka. In respect of such property, whether given by gift or will she is the absolute owner and can deal with it in any way she likes. She may spend, sell or give it away at her own pleasure. It is thus clear that the properties gifted to her before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhana properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. He has no control over her stridhana property. Husband may use it during the time of his distress but nonetheless he has a moral obligation to restore the same or its value to his wife. Therefore, stridhana property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof. In the instant case, the allegation would attract the definition of breach of trust with within the meaning of section 405 IPC. Entrustment of some properties and dominion over them is attributed to the applicants hence having considered the rival submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, prima facie case under section 406 IPC has been made out and this Court is of the view that pendency of this application would not serve any useful purpose .
From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only a prima case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The applicants are free to take all the submissions before the trial court. This Court does not see any good ground to quash the proceedings pending against the applicants. This application has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order is hereby vacated. The court below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and conclude the trial if possible within six months avoiding unnecessary adjournments by applying provision of section 309 Cr.P.C. A copy of this order be sent to the court below for compliance.
Order Date :- 19.10.2012
No comments:
Post a Comment