Swaran Singh and ors. vs Jagdish Kaur

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The petitioners happen to be parentsinlaw and brothersinlaw of Mst. Jagdish Kaur complainant and seek quashment of complaint Annexure P. A filed against them by the complainant as well asorder Annexure P2 of the trial court summoning the petitioners alongwith Joginder Singh husband of the complainant to face trial for the offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code, inter alia. on the ground of complaint being barred by time under the provisions of Section (468)of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and on the ground of vagueness of the allegations qua entrustment of stridhan and its misappropriation.

For understanding the controversy in the right context, the factual matrix of the case figuring in the complaint needs to be reproduced :

That the complainant was married to Joginder Singh accused No. 1 several years back at village Lalton Kalan, Tehsil and District Ludhiana according to Sikh rites and ceremonies.

That accused No. 2 is the father, accused No. 3 is brother, accused No. 4 is mother and accused No. 5 is brotherinlaw of accused No. 1. All the above said accused actively participated in the marriage of the complaint with accused No. 1. Dowry articles of worth Rs. 80,000/ consisting of golden ornaments, clothes, furniture, utensils and other things mentioned in detail in the list attached with the complaint were given by her parents and relatives at the time of marriage to the complainant which were entrusted to accused No. 1 to 5 on that very day, and these were taken into possession by them in the presence of the respectables. S. Surjit Singh, Narinder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Hind Singh with a direction to hand over the same to the complainant for her use.

That the complainant lived with her husband for about two years and later on she was deserted by her husband without any sufficient cause or reason when the complainant refused to ask her parents to fulfil the demand of Rs. 4000/ made by her husband to purchase a truck. The complainant gave birth to a female child just after two mouths of desertion, but the accused No. 1 and his family members did not come to see the child though messages were sent to them. Several attempts were made by the father of the complainant by taking panchayat to Gobindgarh to pursue the accused to take the petitioner back in their house, but the accused refused to accede his father request.

That the complainant and her daughter Amrit Pal Kaur aged about 5 years filed an application under section 125 Cr. PC. for the grant of maintenance allowance and the same was granted @ Rs. 200/ and Rs. 100/ respectively by the Court of Shri J. S. Klar, JMIC, Ludhiana, vide order dated 2121986. A divorce petition and setting aside thereof the exparte proceedings has been pending in the Court of Shri S.S. Sohal, Additional District Judge, Patiala.

That the articles above mentioned entrusted to accused Nos. 1 to 5 were never given by the accused to the complainant for her use and possession of the same but these were illegally, dishonestly and malafidely retained/misappropriated by the accused in order to made a wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the complainant.

That the complainant demanded from the accused to deliver the above said entrusted articles of dowry which constituted her Stridhan on 11286 and on subsequent dates i.e., 19286 and 21286. When the accused No. 1 to came to Ludhiana to attend the proceedings under section 125 Cr. PC. The father of the complainant also persuaded them to send the articles entrusted to them at the time of marriage but they refused to hand over the entrusted articles. The parents of the complainant directed the accused at the time of marriage to give the entrusted articles, to the complainant for her use, but the accused have not done the needful of the demand and have thus committed criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating an converting the same to their own use.

That the articles given to the complainant at the time of marriage were entrusted to the accused at village Lalton Kalan, PS Sadar, Tehsil and District Ludhiana and the offence was, committed at the District Courts Ludhiana, when the accused refused to deliver the abovesaid articles to the complainant and hence the Hon''ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the records.

Regarding the complaint being barred by time under the provisions of section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 there appears to be no force in the contention of Mr. M.S. Rakkar that the offence punishable under section 406, Indian Penal Code, took place five years prior to the filing of the complaint when on the complainant was turned out of her matrimonial house without returning her stridhan, because the perusal of the complaint reveals that the complainant continued demanding the stridhan on 11th, 19th and 21st February, 1986 and filed the complaint on 541986 when the accusedpetitioners finally refused to return her stridhan. The offence under section 406, Indian Penal Code, is punishable when the limitation for filing complaint concerning such offence would be three years under section 468(2)(c) of the Code. The complaint having been filed within two months of the refusal to part with stridhan cannot be said to be barred by time, especially when the Division Bench of this Court in Cr. M. No. 7923 M of 1989, decided on 911991 has held the offence of misappropriation of stridhan to be a continuous one. Thus, fresh cause of action would continue to accrue to the complainant on every refusal of the accused petitioners to return her stridhan.

The observations of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, 1981 PLR 457 are not relevant to the facts of the case in hand as therein a specific date was given regarding the misappropriation of the funds of the Cooperative Society by the Cashier of the Society and under these circumstances the Apex Court observed that although the accused was acquitted by the trial Court under section 408 of the Penal Code but convicted of the charge under section 406 of the Code, the provision of section (428)(2)(c) of the Code would be applicable as the complaint was filed much after the expiry of the period of three years prescribed therein. The contention of Mr. Rakkar that the offence was committed the moment the complainant was turned out of the house is not acceptable as there are always chances for reconciliation between the parties and the cut off date would be (2621986) when finally the husband and inlaws of the complainant refused to hand over all the articles of stridhan.

Regarding the vagueness of the allegations in the complaint on the point of entrustment of the property and misappropriation, it transpires that the complainant has simply averred in paras 2 and 6 of the complaint that the articles mentioned in the list annexed with the complaint were entrusted to all the five accused on the occasion of her marriage and that all these accused had refused to return the same on her demand on 1421986 for the first time. It can be well inferred in view of the social customs of our society that on the occasion of the marriage, the gifts given to the bride by her parents, or her relatives are entrusted either to the bridegroom or to the parents of the bridegroom. Thus the complaint cannot be said to be vague qua them, even though there is no specific averment therein regarding entrustment of stridhan to these persons. However, the case of the husband of the sister of the bridegroom and brother of the bridegroom is distinguishable as they are not supposed to accept stridhan in the presence of parents of the bridegroom.

Consequently, for the reasons recorded above, by accepting this petition partly. the complaint as well as the summoning order qua Swaran Singh and Nirbhai Singh Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 is quashed, in order to avoid unnecessary harassment to these petitioners. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Amar Kaur as well as Gurdial Singh petitioners and Jagdish Kaur complainant through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 2751991.