This disposable order dismissed a misc. petition challenging the quashing of a Section 406 IPC charge. The court held that since the complainant admitted receiving dowry articles in an application to the police, she could not subsequently claim misappropriation.
Misc. petition dismissed; record sent back to trial court for expediting the pending trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 817/2009 (Veena Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.)
DATE OF ORDER : 06.02.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Mr. Mridul Jain,
Mr. Bhagat Dadhich, for the petitioner. Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Umesh Shrimali, for the respondents Nos.2 to 4.
The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitionercomplainant 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 under Section 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 under Section 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 498-A IPC and thereafter the respondents Nos.2 to 4 were charged for the offences under Sections 406 and 498-A 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 under Section 498-A IPC has quashed the charge for the offence under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 498-A
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 under Section 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 under Section 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 under Section 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.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
ms rathore
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court erred in quashing the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC when the complainant admitted receiving dowry articles in her application to the investigati
Whether the petitioner can be permitted to allege misappropriation of dowry articles after having admitted receipt thereof in a prior application.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Veena Gupta
The State of Rajasthan
Sandeep Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
