A prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC exists against the petitioners, and the power under Section 482 of the CrPC was not applicable for quashing the proceedings.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Tiwari, the counsel representing the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE praying st for quashing the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 c Class No.4, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in C.R. Case No.3845 /2022.

3. The respondent being the complainant filed the complaint case against the petitioners. She was in love with late Manjeet Nath and on 06.12.2013, their marriage was registered in the office of the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (M), Assam. On 13.12.2013, the social marriage was also solemnized at Guwahati. It may be mentioned that the petitioner Kulendra Kumar Nath is the father of late Manjeet Nath.

4. After the marriage, the respondent started her matrimonial life with her husband in the house of Kulendra Kumar Nath. While going to the matrimonial house, the respondent took with her the stridhan properties. She handed over the stridhan properties to Kulendra Kumar Nath and his wife.

5. It was after the marriage, the respondent came to know that her husband late Manjeet Nath was suffering from diabetes. She has alleged that he started to show hostility towards her. According to the respondent, her husband was also addicted to alcohol. Under the influence of alcohol, he used to pick up quarrel with her on petty issues.

6. The respondent continued to tolerate the hostility shown to her by her husband. On 18.07.2018, late Manjeet Nath assaulted the respondent and on that day, he threw her out of the house. The respondent returned to the house of her parents leaving behind her stridhan properties in the house of her husband.

7. The respondent had a joint account with her husband Manjeet Nath in the ICICI Bank, Bhangagarh Branch and had a locker there.

8. Thereafter, the respondent filed a divorce petition in the family Court, Kamrup(M) being F.C. (Civil) No.322/2019. Thereafter, her husband Manjeet Nath expired on 09.03.2021 and therefore, the respondent had withdrawn the aforesaid case.

9. The stridhan properties of the respondent were still in the house of the present petitioner Kulendra Kumar Nath. On 02.05.2022, the respondent along with her mother went to the house of Kulendra Kumar Nath and asked for return of the stridhan properties. But Kulendra Kumar Nath and the other petitioner Smti. Shushma Chetri had misbehaved with the respondent and her mother. They refused to hand over the stridhan properties.

10. Narrating the aforesaid facts, the complaint case was filed by the respondent.

11. On 09.06.2022, the trial court examined the respondent under Section 200 of the CrPC and took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE against Kulendra Kumar Nath and Smti. Shushma Chetri.

12. The respondent took a plea before the trial court stating that her gold ornaments were kept in the locker of ICICI Bank, Bhangagarh and the locker was jointly operated by her and husband. Since her husband had already expired, the other key of the locker was with Kulendra Kumar Nath and he refused to hand over the keys to the respondent.

13. After hearing both sides, the trial court directed issue of a search warrant for recovery of the said key of the locker from the possession of Kulendra Kumar Nath.

14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

15. An estranged wife has filed a complaint case praying for recovery of her stridhan properties from the house of her father-in-law. She had a joint account and a locker in a Bank where she had kept her gold ornaments. The account was joi