Veena Gupta vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Sandeep Mehta

The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant challenging the order dated 21.03.2009 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 13/2009, whereby, he whilst partly setting aside the order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Gangangar in Criminal Original Case No. 222/2004 has quashed the charge for offence u/s 406 IPC directed to be framed against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the misc. petition are that the petitioner herein has filed a complaint against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on 26.10.2002 with the allegations that she was married with the respondent No. 2 on 08.12.1997 and that substantial dowry was given in the marriage. It has further been alleged that after she went to her matrimonial home, the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 continuously tortured and beat her for the demand of dowry and thereafter turned her out from the house. On which, a Panchayat has to be called, but the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 refused to keep the petitioner in their house. It has also been alleged that the ''stridhan'' articles of the petitioner-complainant were retained by the accused persons and were not returned back to her despite a request being made in this regard. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. and a FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statements of the witnesses and while investigation was pending, the petitioner and her father gave an application to the Investigating Officer dated 03.12.2002, as per which, the case had been filed by her under some misapprehension and that her dowry articles have already been received back by her.

Based on the said application, the police proposed a FR in the matter. The complainant was not agreeable to the FR and submitted a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint. The statements of the complainant and her father were recorded in support of the complaint and thereafter the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC and thereafter the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were charged for the offences under Sections 406 and 498A IPC.

A revision was preferred by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and the learned revisional court i.e. the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, No. 2, Sri Ganganagar whilst upholding the order of framing charge for the offence u/s 498A IPC has quashed the charge for the offence u/s 406 IPC directed to be framed against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. Hence the complainant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the discharge of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from the offence u/s 406 IPC and the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have approached this Court by way of filing a misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 816/2009 seeking quashing of the charge framed against them for the offence u/s 498A IPC.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused respondents Nos. 2 to 4 at the outset has submitted that he does not want to pursue the misc. petition being S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 816/2009 and the same stands dismissed as not pressed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample material on the record of the case to show that the ''stridhan'' articles which were entrusted to the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were not returned back despite a request being made and thus there was ample material on the record of the case for framing charge for the offence u/s 406 IPC against the accused respondents. He further submits that the learned revisional court has committed grave error in discharging the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 from the offence u/s 406 IPC.

Learned Counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 submits that the application submitted by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer on 03.12.2002 is not disputed and is an admitted document. He further submits that in the said application, the complainant has specifically mentioned that she has received back her ''stridhan'' and dowry articles. Thus, once the dowry articles have been received by the complainant, there could not be any breach of trust by the accused in relation to the ''stridhan'' articles of the complainant because it is not the case of the complainant that after 03.12.2002, the ''stridhan'' articles were given back to the accused. Thus, the order of the learned revisional court does not call for any interference by this Court.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties, perused the orders impugned passed by the learned courts below and have considered the arguments advanced at the bar.

Un-disputedly, the petitioner and her father have submitted an application to the Investigating Officer on 03.12.2002. The contents of the application are explicit to the effect that the petitioner-complainant has received back her dowry articles. A perusal of the protest petition filed by the petitioner does not at any place disclose that she has disagreed with that part of the application, wherein, she has mentioned the receipt of the dowry articles. The only grievance in the protest petition that an agreement was entered into between the parties that the petitioner shall be kept back at her matrimonial home but thereafter the accused respondents have resiled from the compromise.

In the opinion of this Court, the fact regarding having received back the dowry articles by the petitioner-complainant not having been refuted in the protest petition, now the complainant cannot be permitted to allege that the accused misappropriated her dowry articles.

Resultantly, the learned revisional court has committed no error in quashing of the charge for offence u/s 406 IPC against the respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

Consequently, this misc. petition being bereft of force is hereby dismissed. The record of the learned trial court be sent back forthwith. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.