Surinder Kumar Arora vs Suman Arora

Jai Singh, Sekhon, J.

Surinder Kumar and Mst. Bhajan Kaur accused. petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for quashing the order dated 24.10.1989 of Judicial Magistrate, Barnala, whereby they were summoned to face trial for offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint filed by Mst. Suman Arora.

The brief resume of facts figuring in the impugned order of the trial Court is that Mst. Suman Arora was married with Surinder Kumar Arora on 23.4.1989 at Barnala. Thereafter the parties cohabited as husband and wife at Meerut. On the occasion of the marriage, Rs. 3 000/ were entrusted to Bhajan Kaur, motherinlaw of the complainant as vidaigi. One silver set was entrusted to Surinder Kumar Arora besides some other articles. The complainant was blessed with two sons but due to the greedy nature of the husband and motherinlaw, their marriage broke down which resulted in the wife along with her two sons coming to her parents place at Barnala and filing the complaint when the husband and motherinlaw refused to return her Istri Dhan.

In this petition, the accusedpetitioners, inter alia seek the quashment of the complaint as well as the order of the trial Court summoning these petitioners on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as well as vagueness of the allegations in the complaint regarding the demand of Istri Dhan. It is also averred that, the complainant has got registered a case against these very accusedpetitioners at Meerut on 26.5.1988 for offences under sections 498A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the complainant having not made any demand for return of dowry in that case, she is estopped to do in this complaint.

In return filed by the respondentwife, the abovereferred contentions of the accusedpetitioners are controverted.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents besides perusing the record as the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to turn up even today.

The law is well settled on the point that the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the misappropriation of the Istri Dhan of the wife by her husband or other relations of the latter or motherinlaw is a continuing offence. The observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Balram Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7923M of 1989 decided on 9.1.1994 can be referred with advantage in this regard. Thus, so long as the husband or motherinlaw fail to return the Istri Dhan on the demand of wife, the offence of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code would continue to be committed from day today. If it is so, then the conduct of the wife in coming to Barnala and thereafter filing the complaint before Judicial Magistrate at Barnala, alleging that the husband and motherinlaw had not returned her Istri Dhan so far, would certainly make the last refusal to return Istri Dhan at Barnala, although there is no specific mention in the complaint about the place where the wife had last demanded return of Istri Dhan and the accused had refused to do so. Moreover, under the provisions of subsection (4) of section 181 of the Code, the Court where any property was received, retained or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accusedpersons has the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust. In the case in hand, admittedly, the property was received by or entrusted to the accused petitioners at Barnala. Accused petitioners are required to return the same to the wife at the place where she had settled after her estrangement with them. Thus the Court at Barnala certainly has jurisdiction to try the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

The mere fact that the wife had not stated in the report dated 16.5.1989 lodged by her at Meerut or in FIR registered later on 26.5.89 regarding her husband and motherinlaw having not returned Istri Dhan, is of no consequence because she had lodged a report just after she was turned out by her motherinlaw and husband from her matrimonial home after maltreatment and torture on the ground of having failed to fulfil their demand for fetching more dowry. Thus, at that time she was not expected to state that her motherinlaw and husband had refused to hand over her Istri Dhan because in her heart of hearts she felt contented that they will return the same later on.

For the reasons recorded above, there being no merit in this petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. The respondent, through her counsel, is directed to appear before the trial Court at Barnala on 30.4.1991. The trial Court shall give notice of the next date to the accused and dispose of the case expeditiously.