8. It has also come on r e cord that even prior to th e marriage of the applicant with the accu s ed No.1, it had been agreed between th e parties that he would stay in the maternal house of th e applicant as ghar javai. As such too, there w as no question of any exchang e of dowry. In fact, the applicant/complaina n t herself had produced a Sal e Deed in favour of the husband of the applic a nt (Ex.C4) which shows that h e had purchased one property while residin g in the village of the applican t and the ad d ress given in the said Sale De e d is also of the village of th e applicant. E v en otherwise, only general allegations had been made tha t articles like T V, fridge, sofa set, utensils etc. had been given at the time o f marriage. N o specific allegation of specific entrustment of dowry article s were made. It has nowhere been stated a s to which family member wa s entrusted with which dowry article. Even there is nothing on record t o indicate th a t the said articles were mi s appropriated by the accused persons. Th e re is nothing whatsoever ple a ded or brought on record t o show that t h e applicant had ever demand e d the said dowry articles bac k from the ac c used persons; and that there h ad been any refusal on part o f the accused to return the said dowry articles to her. It was accordingl y concluded t h at the ingredients to constitut e an offence under Section 40 6 IPC were no t fulfilled and therefore, no off e nce was made out against th e respondents.
