Back
1989 Supreme(P&H) 616
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.P.Chowdhri, J.
Hakam Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5686-M of 1987,
Decided On : AUGUST 10, 1989
The offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal breach of trust, is a continuing offence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 468, 472, 473, 482 - DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 - SECTION 2, 4, 6 - STRIDHAN - CONTINUING OFFENCE - LIMITATION - JURISDICTION - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SECTION 406, INDIAN PENAL CODE - STRIHAN - DEFINITION - DOWRY - DEFINITION - COMPLAINT - SPECIFICITY OF ALLEGATIONS - DISCHARGE OF ACCUSED - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 482 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a complaint and summoning order issued against them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, including the husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandmother of the husband, brother of the husband, and sister of the husband, had committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating the complainant's dowry items, which constituted her Stridhan.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with criminal breach of trust, was a continuing offence. The court reasoned that the offence continued until the property criminally misappropriated was restored to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Therefore, the limitation period for filing a complaint under Section 406 began to run afresh at every moment of time during which the offence continued.
Issues: 1. Whether the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was a continuing offence. 2. Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. 4. Whether the complaint was specific enough in alleging the entrustment of specific dowry items to specific accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was a continuing offence because the misappropriation of property continued until it was restored to the rightful owner. 2. The court held that the complaint was not barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because the offence was a continuing offence and the limitation period began to run afresh at every moment of time during which the offence continued. 3. The court held that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence because the offence was a continuing offence and the limitation period had not expired. 4. The court held that the complaint was not specific enough in alleging the entrustment of specific dowry items to specific accused. The court noted that the complaint only alleged that the dowry items were entrusted to the accused without specifying which item was entrusted to which accused.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and summoning order against the grandmother of the husband, brother of the husband, and sister of the husband. The court allowed the case against the remaining accused to proceed according to law.
A. P. Chowdhri, J.
1. The petitioners seek quashing of complaint, Annexure P-l and summoning order, Annexure P-2, passed thereon by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajpura, under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Unfortunately, the marriage between Smt. Narinder Kaur, Respondent No.2 and Hakam Singh, petitioner No.1 did not work. Narinder Kaur filed complaint, Annexure P-1 dated 4-5-1987. The material allegations for the present purpose made in the complaint are as under:
3. Narinder Kaur was married with Hakam Singh at village Hamayunpur, Police Station Lalru, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, in May, 1981. The parents and other relations of the complainant gave articles detailed in paragraph 3 valued at Rs.35,000/- as dowry to the complainant. These articles were entrusted to the accused persona. The said dowry items constituted Stridhan of the complainant and the accused persons had dominion over the same. The complainant was turned out of the house in April, 1984, in bare clothes. The accused persons kept her entire Stridhan and in fact converted the various items of dowry to their own use. They thereby committed an offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Sec.406, read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code.
4. After recording preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the accused under Sec.406 read with Sec.34, Indian Penal Code, by order dated 5-6-1987, Annexure P-2. The accused are the husband (petitioner No.1); father-in-law, petitioner No.2, mother-in-law, petitioner No.3, grandmother of the husband, petitioner No.4, brother of the husband, petitioner No.5 and sister of the husband, petitioner No.6. It may also be mentioned that Gurmit Kaur, petitioner No.6 is even now a minor and she filed the present petition through her father Karnail Singh.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made two submissions. He contended that the complaint in question was barred by limitation under Sec.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the complaint deserved to be quashed on this ground. The other submission is that the complainant failed to make any specific allegation against the various accused and she bad attempted to rope in all relations of the accused including grandmother of the husband on the one band and a minor sister on the other hand.
6. I shall deal with both these contentions in the same order.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to Sec.468 of the Code, which lays down a limitation of three years where the offence involved is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. The offence under Sec.406, Indian Penal Code, is punishable with imprisonment upto three years. Reference was also made to Gurcharan Singh V/s. Lakhwinder Kaur, 1988 (2) Recent C. R.621. The above case related to an offence under Sec.406, Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 . It was not disputed before the learned Single Judge in the above case that the period of limitation was three years from the date when the offence was committed. It was held that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offence and the complaint was, therefore, quashed under Sec.482 of the Code. Learned counsel also referred to State of Punjab V/s. Sarwan Singh, 1982 (1) CLR 63, in which the Supreme Court dismissed S. L. P. against the order of this Court, whereby this Court had set aside the conviction on the ground that the prosecution had been launched after the expiry of limitation prescribed in the Code.
8. The contention of learned counsel for the State is that the offence under Sec.4015, Indian Penal Code, was a continuing offence and the relevant provision with regard to limitation is contained in Sec.472 of the Code. It was also argued that in any case, the Court had ample powers under Sec.473 to
