Chand Rani and ors. vs Sunita Rani

S.S. Dewan, J.

The petitioners seek the quashing of the complaint (Annexure P1) filed by the respondent against them alongwith her husband,namely, Raj Kumar under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code and the summoning order (Annexure P.2). passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on November 17,1987.

Briefly the allegations levelled against them are that she was married to Raj Kumar on 8121985 and at that time her parents gave a number of articles to Raj Kumar and his parents by way of dowry and that some time later the accused (meaning thereby all the petitioners and her husband) turned her out and also declined to return "the articles of dowry." After recording some evidence under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, the trial Magistrate passed the impugned order (Annexure P. 2).

Primarily, the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the allegation in the complaint that the petitioners are in any way guilty of breach of trust, cannot reasonably be accepted as there is no specific allegation of any entrustment of any dowry article to them. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case has been made out against the petitioners. A bare perusal of the complaint indicates that nospecific allegation about the entrustment of any specific article to any of the petitioners has been made therein. Only a bald assertion that the accused persons turned her out and kept her articles in their custody" has been made in the complaint.

The learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there can be no bar to a complaint being filed against the relations of the husband and in support of this assertion he has cited L.V. Jadhav v. Shankara Abasaheb Pawar and others, (1983(2) Recent Criminal Reports 400 : 1983 Cri. L.J. 1501) and Pratibba Rani v. Suraj Kumar and anr., (1985(1) Recent Criminal Reports 539 : 1985(1) C.L.R. 466). It is needless to refer to these authorities because the facts and circumstances stated therein are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.

It is not even alleged in the complaint that any specific article had been entrusted to any particular accused. In such circumstances, a prima facie case under Sections 406/498A, Indian Penal Code may be considered to have been made out against the husband for not returning the dowry articles to the wife but it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed the offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code. Manifestly, the proceedings against the petitioners tantamount to the misuse of the process of the Court.

Consequently, the complaint (Annexure P. 1) as well as the summoning order (Annexure P. 2) are quashed visavis the petitioners.