Gurdev Singh vs Nachhattar Kaur alias Mandip Kaur

G.S. Chahal, J.

Gurdev Singh petitioner has come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and seeks quashing of complaint dated January 29, 1990 (Annexure P1) and the summoning order dated November, 17, 1990 (Annexure P3) passed by Shri G.S. Dhiman, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

A complaint has been filed by Nachhattar Kaur, who is daughter in law of the petitioner and according to the allegations made in the complaint. Nachhattar Kaur, was married to Daljit Singh, son of the present petitioner, on July 31, 1982, at village Nizampur, in accordance with Anand Karaj ceremony. At the time of betrothal and marriage ceremony, various articles were given, as per list attached with the complaint. Articles of dowry detailed in Annexure A were entrusted to Daljit Singh and the articles mentioned in Annexure B were entrusted to the present petitioner. However, Daljit Singh and his family members were not satisfied with the articles of dowry given by her parents. The complainant was taunted for insufficiency of dowry. Ultimately on demands being made, father of the complainant gave a Kelvinator Refrigerator and Weston Television to the petitioner and his relations. But still they were not satisfied and continued to maltreat the complainant. In November, 1987, the complainant was given beatings and turned out of the house in wearing apparel. The complainant has been deprived of her stridhan which articles have not been returned to her inspite of demand.

Mr. Walia, who appears for the petitioner has urged that the articles given as per list Annexure B are not stated to have been entrusted for the benefit of the petitioner but in the form of customary gifts to be given to various relations of Daljit Singh and even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted at their face value, no offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out because it is only if the articles entrusted are refused to be returned in accordance with the terms of the trust that offence of criminal breach of trust can be made out. This proposition could not be contested by Mr. Chopra, appearing for the respondent. I agree with the contention that there is no allegation in the complaint that any articles to be used by the complainant at her inlaws'' house were in fact entrusted to the present petitioner. No offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is thus, made out against the petitioner.

With respect of the allegations of cruelty, the complaint contains the necessary ingredients of the offence. She complains of maltreatment throughout her stay at her in laws'' house. So far as the truthfulness of these allegations are concerned, these shall be assessed by the trial Magistrate after leading of the evidence.

In view of the above discussion, I allow the petition to the extent that the complaint qua the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. However, he shall face the trial for remaining offences. The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appeal before the Trial Magistrate on March 2, 1993.