Mutual consent divorce settlement without reserving liberty estops wife from pursuing criminal complaint for stridhan retention by husband and relatives.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.01.2025, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant filed a complaint before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 403, read with Section 504 and 506 of IPC. It was asserted that Accused No.1 was the husband of the complainant, and accused No.2 and accused No.3 were her parents-in-law. The marriage between the complainant and the accused No. 1 was dissolved by way of mutual consent on 21.10.2020. Parents and relatives of the complainant had given various articles to her as stridhan at the time of her marriage. The accused retained the complainant’s stridhan even after the dissolution of the marriage. The complainant asked the accused to return her stridhan, but they failed to do so. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court for taking action as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. Learned Trial Court recorded pre-charge evidence and framed the charges against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. No witness was sought to be examined/cross- examined after the framing of charges.

5. The accused, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. admitted that the complainant was married to accused Saurabh and their marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 21.10.2010. They denied the rest of the prosecution’s case. They claimed that they had not retained the complainant’s stridhan. The complainant had her jewellery with her, which she used to wear. The witnesses deposed falsely as they were related to the complainant. They did not produce any evidence in their defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that the complainant and the accused No. 1 had dissolved their marriage by mutual consent pursuant to the settlement between them. Nothing survived after the settlement. The complainant was estopped from proceeding with the complaint. The complainant and her mother failed to produce any bill, receipt or list of ornaments. Statements of the complainant and her witnesses contradicted each other. Hence, the accused were acquitted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the complainant has filed the present appeal, asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused. The complainant and her mother proved that the complainant’s stridhan was retained by the accused. The complainant issued a legal notice, which was duly served upon the accused, but the accused failed to return the stridhan. A decree passed in divorce proceedings was not relevant in the present proceedings. Therefore, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.

8. I have heard Mr Lalit Kumar Shar