There is a presumption of joint possession and custody of property between spouses in a matrimonial home, which precludes the essential elements of entrustment or dominion over property required for a charge of criminal breach of trust under IPC 406.

B. S. Yadav, J.

1. The fact giving rise to this petition under sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are that respondent. No.1 Ranjit Rani had tiled a complaint under Sec.4, 4-B and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code against her father-in-law, Mohan Lal petitioner, his wife and sons including her husband Surinder Paul. in The Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana. After recording paramilitary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate issued summons to the accused under sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code, Two of the sons of the petitioner, one of when is in Military and the other one is studying in Medical College, Pune, have not been served so far. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings on the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do not constitute an offence under sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code or any provision of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Here it becomes necessary to give some facts in brief as contained in the above mentioned complaint. Ranjit Rani was married to Surinder Paul on 2nd December, 1978 according to the Hindu rites. The articles mentioned in the list were given in the dowry. A couple of days after the marriage Ranjit Rani and her husband came to the formers parents house situated in payal. They stayed there for the night. While leaving on the next day Ranjit Rani told her parents that her father-in-law as well as mother-in-law had told her that she should bring from her parents 5 suits for the menials and one for herself. Her parents gave 5 suits to her as well as Rs.100.00 for her suit and also gave some money to her and her husband as shagun. Thereafter the in-laws of Ranjit Rani and her husband started harassing her and said that they had not given gold rings to the relations, as mentioned in para No.4 of the complaint, and in case she wanted to reside there be should bring these rings. On the occasion of Lorhi festival, Ranjit Ranis brother. Yash Paul came to her with Sandhara, which consisted of a suit for her, one for her mother in law, one blanket for her husband 2nd some money for her father-in-law. When Yash Paul asked Ranjit Ranis father-in, law to send her, her father in-law told him that they would not send her and that he should tell his father that her share in the property be given to them (i. e. her in-laws family ). Later on her mother in-law asked her that she should bring one Dehri-da-suit from her parents house. Accordingly she brought one She also brought a fan on the asking of her father-in-law. Once her father visited her in village Rauni, which is her in. laws village. He was asked to give Rs.10,000.00 for a moter cycle. However, he expressed his inability to do so. Her in. laws asked her father not to visit Rauni again and, said that the ties of relationship between them had snapped and that she (i. e. Ranjit Rani would not be sent to Payal. Thereafter Ranjit Ranis father brought his young, brothers and twice a Panchayat to village Rauni and asked the in-laws of Ranjit Rani that her marriage had taken place 7 or 8 months back and, therefore she should be sent to Payal for a few days. Her in-laws said that she would be sent on the following Sunday. When her father came to take her, her father-in-law and latters elder son, Dharam Paul told him that in case he wanted to take her daughter, be should pay Rs.10,000.00 , otherwise he should not come. Her father returned to his village. When her father learnt that she was being harassed the accused, he lodged a report in Police Station Payal on 28th August, 1979 alleging danger to his daughter and that her in laws were demanding motor cycle from him. Police went to village Rauni on the same day with her father and brought her to Payal. At that time she had injuries on her person on account of beating given to her. The complaint was by Ranjit Rani en 24th Decel98o after obtaining section from the Sub. Divisional Magistrate, Khanna.

3. The learned