Point of Law: Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust"

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present application is confined to applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, since the same was not pressed qua applicant No.1, who is the husband of the deceased - sister of the first informant.

2. The applicants are the original accused in the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 1-100 of 2017 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, District: Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC").

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 - first informant is the sister of one deceased Parulben. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is the father-in-law and applicant No. 4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Parulben. The marriage of Parulben with the applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 20.05.2014 and after the marriage, Parulben started residing with the applicants in a joint family. It is alleged that the applicants are origin from Africa, so they all went there, including Parulben, where she has been subjected to harassment. It is submitted that due to harassment caused by the applicants, Parulben left her matrimonial home in the month of January, 2016. After that, during her stay at her parental home, Parulben suffered from serious illness and, therefore, she passed away on 17.02.2017. After that on 18.04.2017, the sister of the deceased Parulben-respondent No. 2 filed the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants before the Mahila Police Station under Sections 406 and 114 of the IPC regarding stridhan as well as it is alleged that before marriage, applicant No. 1 made false promise.

4. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta S. Lodha for learned advocate Mr. Popat appearing for the applicants has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same does not disclose any offence against the applicants. She has submitted that the marriage of applicant No. 1 has been solemnized on 20.05.2014 with Parulben, i.e. sister of the first informant. After residing together, no dispute has been arisen. She has submitted that after some time, there were some matrimonial disputes between applicant No. 1 and Parulben, therefore, she left to India from Africa with all her articles and everything. She got her all articles at her place and the applicants are not aware about anything.

4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has further submitted that the first informant left her matrimonial home in the month of January, 2016 and she stayed at her parental home. She did not make any demand of any articles from the applicants and also did not send any notice regarding stridhan. She has submitted that on 04.10.2016, she filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 930 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("the Code") for maintenance in the Family Court, Rajkot. At that time also she did not file any complaint regarding stridhan. She did not make any complaint/demand about stridhan and after long time, the impugned F.I.R. came to be filed with mala fide intention. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been filed just to harass the applicants and the same is an afterthought and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside.

4.2. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that the wife of applicant No. 1, i.e. the deceased Parulben (sister of the first informant) passed away on 17.02.2017 due to illness and during her lifetime, she made an application for maintenance but she did not make any application for stridhan (kariyavar) as the same was already with her. However, the first informant, who is the sister of deceased Parulben, filed the impugned F.I.R. after her death and during her lifetime, no stridhan was demanded by Parulben or by the first informant. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. came to be filed just to harass the applicants with ulterior motive.

4.3. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that deceased Parulben never