Alka vs State of U.P.

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magisirate-V, Ghaziabad in criminal complaint No. 3064 of 2010, Smt. Alka v. Ram Pratap and Ors. u/s 406, I.P.C., PS Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad whereby the complaint was dismissed u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist was married with accused Ram Pratap on 28.11.2004 and her parents spent a sum of Rs. 7 lacs on marriage. Her parents and relatives gave sufficient gifts and dowry, which is in possession of the accused persons. The accused persons were not happy with the dowry given at the lime of marriage and used to harass her on account of demand of Rs. 2 lacs as dowry. A case is pending in respect of harassment and demand of dowry. It was contended that despite demand, the Stridhan and other goods given at the time of marriage and entrusted to the accused persons were never returned and, therefore, complaint u/s 406, I.P.C. was filed.

Learned Magistrate examined the complainant u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the witnesses Krishan Pal Singh Rana and Surendra Singh Tomar u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure A list of goods given at the lime of marriage was also made annexure to the complaint.

Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s 203, Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the list has not been signed by the receivers and the property, the amount paid in cash and Milai was a gift and cannot be said to be entrusted to the accused. It has not been specified as to which articles were entrusted to which abused.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that Article Nos. 1 to 39 of the list were dowry items, which were given by the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage to husband and his parents. Article Nos. 40 to 54 were given as cash and Milai and gifts for the relatives. The contention is that husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law are responsible for the return of the articles given at the time of marriage, when demanded by the wife find failure to return the same would amount to criminal misappropriation.

It was pointed out by the Court that the family of the accused includes Devar and Nanad also and it cannot be presumed that dowry articles were entrusted to Devar and Nanad also. Learned Counsel conceded that Devar Shyam Pratap and Nanad Km. Rekha may be exempted from summoning and the revision in respect of Devar and Nanad be treated as not pressed by the revisionist. However, in respect of husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law, the contention is that they were entrusted with the property mentioned in the list at Article Nos.1 to 39. It was further submitted that if the list has not been signed by the persons who received the property, it cannot lead to a conclusion that such articles were not given at the lime of dowry whereas, in oral evidence, specific mention was made in the statement of Krishan Pal Singh that the articles mentioned in the list were given to the accused persons.

I have considered the complaint, statement of complainant and her witnesses and the impugned order. As far as the impugned order in respect of husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the complainant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be justified. Some one from the family of the accused has to be responsible for the return of the articles given at the time of dowry, if the couple is not living together. Apparently, husband and his parents are responsible for the same. Thus, in respect of husband and his parents, the dismissal of complaint is not proper. Revision is allowed.

Impugned order dated 15.7.2010 is maintained in respect of licensed Shyam Pratap (Devar) and Km. Rekha (Nanad), but is set aside in respect of accused Ram Pratap (husband), Smt. China (mother-in-law) and Gajendra (father-in-law). Learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter afresh in respect of these three accused after hearing learned Counsel for the complainant.