IMPORTANT POINT
Stridhan remains the exclusive property of the wife, and a husband can be held liable for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC for refusing to return it, regardless of their marital relationship.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Tiwari, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. This Criminal Petition has been registered on filing of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the petitioners, namely, (1) Mangal Chauhan, (2) Nisha Chauhan and (3) Poonam Chauhan, praying for quashing of C.R. Case No. 195C/2023, which was instituted by the sole respondent on filing of a criminal complaint and same is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M).

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

i. The respondent, namely, Smt. Rina Rai Chauhan who is the wife of the petitioner No. 1, Shri Mangal Chauhan had lodged a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the above named petitioners on 06.05.2023, inter-alia, alleging that she was married to the petitioner No. 1 Shri Mangal Chauhan on 25.11.2022 as per Hindu Rites.

ii. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioners also demanded dowry from the respondent and started subjecting her to cruelty for such demand.

iii. It is also stated in the complaint by the respondent that in the meanwhile on several occasions, unable to bear the torture of the petitioners, the respondent left her matrimonial home and came to her maternal home, however, on several occasions on persuasion, she came with a hope of leading a peaceful matrimonial life but each time the situation worsened. Ultimately, unable to bear the torture perpetrated by the petitioners the respondent came to her parental home on 22.03.2023 and started residing there.

iv. It is also alleged in the complaint that thereafter, on several occasions, the complainant demanded back her stridhan which was kept in her matrimonial home. However, the petitioners refused to return back the said articles. Hence, having no other option, she had to file the complaint petition wherein she had also prayed for issuance of a search warrant under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for recovery of her stridhan.

v. After filing of the aforesaid complaint the respondent was examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By order dated 06.06.2023, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M) had taken cognizance of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also issued processes to the above named petitioners as to why the search warrant under Section 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as prayed for by the respondent complaining for recovery of her stridhan should not be issued.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the complaint case filed by the respondent no ingredients of an offence under Sections 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. He has also submitted that in a case for recovery of stridhan, there cannot be a case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He has submitted that at best it can be a case under appropriate provision of the Prohibition of Dowry Act, 1961. He has submitted that the respondent has abused the process of the Court by launching the criminal proceedings against the petitioners only with a view to harass them.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that there is no element of any criminal breach of trust and has submitted that even if the allegation made against the present petitioners in the complaint case is assumed to be true, it would be a case under special legislation contained in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and in case of any article which was given by way of dowry to the respondent the question of entrustment on behalf of the respondent to the petitioners would not arise.

6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case