Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia, I.S.Tiwana and M.M.Punchhi JJ.
Vinod Kumar Sethi
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4022-M of 1981,
Decided On : MARCH 30, 1982
The Court held that the bonds of matrimony inhibit a prosecution for breach of trust betwixt the spouses inter se, and in particular with regard to the wife's dowry, is the spinal issue which has necessitated the reference of these twelve cases for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench. Allied thereto is the equally (if not more) significant question - whether the High Court has the power in its inherent jurisdiction to quash the police investigative process before it reaches a Court of law for trial.
Fact of the Case:
The present set of cases presents a sad spectacle of a house divided against itself, not merely in the biblical but in the literal sense, where wives are ranged against their husbands in acrimonious criminal prosecutions. The challenge on behalf of the husbands and their relations is focussed basically against the charge of breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against them. Now the core of the argument on behalf of the petitioners is that the very concept of any entrustment or passing dominion over her property by the wife to the husband does not arise at all so long as the marriage subsists. The contention is that the very nature of the conjugal relationship itself would negative any such stand. On this premise it is contended that the basic pre-requisite of the entrustment of property or dominion over property being lacking and non-existent, no offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, can possibly be made out. Therefore it was argued that even accepting the complaints and the first information reports as true they do not and indeed cannot disclose a cognizable offence under Section 406.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the bonds of matrimony inhibit a prosecution for breach of trust betwixt the spouses inter se, and in particular with regard to the wife's dowry, is the spinal issue which has necessitated the reference of these twelve cases for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench. Allied thereto is the equally (if not more) significant question - whether the High Court has the power in its inherent jurisdiction to quash the police investigative process before it reaches a Court of law for trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has the power in its inherent jurisdiction to quash the police investigative process before it reaches a Court of law for trial? 2. Whether the concept of any entrustment or passing dominion over her property by the wife to the husband does not arise at all so long as the marriage subsists? 3. Whether the very nature of the conjugal relationship itself would negative any such stand? 4. Whether the basic pre-requisite of the entrustment of property or dominion over property being lacking and non-existent, no offence under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, can possibly be made out?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court would have the inherent jurisdiction to quash the investigative process in a proper case, but it does not mean that this power is to be exercised indiscriminately. The affirmance of such a power is one thing but using it like the proverbial bull in a China shop is altogether another. It calls for a strong reminder that even where the proceedings have reached the Court by way of a charge-sheet or in the case of the existence of a complaint before it well denned limitations for quashing the same were authoritatively spelt out in R.P. Kapur V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866. 2. The Court held that the very concept of the matrimonial home connotes a jointness of possession and custody by the spouses even with regard to the moveable properties execlusively owned by each of them. It is, therefore, inapt to view the same in view of the conjugal relationship as involving any entrustment or passing of dominion over property day-to-day by the husband to the wife or vice versa. Consequently, barring a special, written agreement to the contrary, no question of any entrustment or dominion over property would normally arise during coverture or its imminent break-up. Therefore, the very essential prerequisites and the core ingredients of the offence under S.406 of the Penal Code would be lacking in a charge of criminal breach of trust of property by one spouse against the other. Inevitably, therefore, the purported allegations of breach of trust betwixt husband and wife so long as the conjugal relationship lasts and the matrimonial home subsists, cannot constitute an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to any special written agreement.
Final Decision: The Court held that the bonds of matrimony, therefore, bar the spectre of the criminal breach of trust qua the property of the spouses at the very threshold of the matrimonial home. It cannot enter its hallowed precincts except through the back door of a special written contract to the contrary with regard to such property.
S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. Do the bonds of matrimony inhibit a prosecution for breach of trust betwixt the spouses inter se, and in particular with regard to the wife s dowry, is the spinal issue which has necessitated the reference of these twelve cases for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench. Allied thereto is the equally (if not more) significant question - whether the High Court has the power in its inherent jurisdiction to quash the police investigative process before it reaches a Court of law for trial.
2. The matrix of facts may be noticed from Criminal Misc. No.4022 of 1981 Vinod Kumar Sethi V/s. State of Punjab and others. The petitioners therein are the husband, the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of respondent No.2 Smt. Veena Rani. The marriage of Smt. Veena Rani respondent to Vinod Kumar Sethi petitioner took place at Bhatinda on the 28th of January, 1979, according to Hindu Vedic rites. It is plain that the marriage did not subsist and on the 18th of April, 1980. Veena Rani respondent addressed an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhatinda. Therein she alleged that at the time of her marriage she had received substantial presents of ornaments, valuable clothes, furniture and other household articles besides Rs. 21,000/- from her parents and relations as also from her husband and mother-in-law as dowry and in consideration of the marriage. She claimed that all these items of property over which she had absolute control had become her Stridhana. It was further stated that as a dutiful wife and as daughter-in-law she reposed full faith in her husband and her parents-in-law and entrusted all the properties aforesaid to them as detailed in annexures- A and B to the application. It was then alleged that after the marriage, all the three petitioners started mal-treating her for extracting more dowry from her parents and made repeated demands from time to time to this effect. When these were not satisfied she was expelled from the house in her wearing apparel and deprived of all the articles of her dowry around January, 1981. Thereafter she made demands for the return of the aforesaid property which allegedly had been entrusted to the petitioners but refused to do so. On these facts it is alleged that the three petitioners in conspiracy with each other were misappropriating her dowry and converting it to their own use in breach of the entrustment made to them. On the basis of the application aforesaid, a first information report was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda, under S.406, I.P.C., and for other offences.
3. According to the petitioners during the course of the investigation, of the aforesaid first information report the three petitioners were arrested on the 2nd of July, 1981, and locked up in the Police Station for 24 hours and their remand was taken for four days after which they were released on bail. It is further alleged that all of them were tortured to the maximum extent and the respondent with the help of the police demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- (One-Lakh) but the petitioners could only arrange Rs. 50,000/- which were given to the police. The police party was also handed over gold weighing 30 tolas. After investigation, challan was filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda, and the petitioners then preferred the petition seeking the quashing of the whole proceedings as a blatant abuse of the process of the Court.
4. A similar set of petitions came up before my learned brother Punchhi, J., sitting singly who by his lucid order of the 6th of March, 1981, referred the cases for an authoritative decision in view of the larger issues involved. Later other petitions raising the identical issues and claiming the same relief of the quashing of the proceedings were also directed to be listed before the Full Bench.
5. It is the admitted position that in a number of these criminal miscellaneous petitions, the matter is as yet only at the investigative stage in pur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
