SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 700

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
R. K. RASTOGI, J.
Nagendra Kumar and Ors.
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr.
Crl. M. Appln. No. 5385 of 2007
Decided On : 19-3-2008.

Advocates Appeared:
Rajesh Kumar Singh, for the Applicants; A.C. Tiwari, Ram Singh, for the Opp. Parties.

The central legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 406, I.P.C., there must be evidence of entrustment of property with the accused, as defined in Section 405, I.P.C.

Headnote:

Section 482 - Quashing of Summoning Order - Section 406, I.P.C

Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that she was subjected to atrocities by her in-laws in connection with dowry demand and was forced to leave her matrimonial home. The Magistrate summoned the accused under Section 406, I.P.C based on the evidence presented.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no evidence of entrustment of property with the accused, as required under Section 405, I.P.C. The summoning order was quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate for further consideration.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to summon the accused under Section 406, I.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations made by the complainant did not amount to criminal breach of trust as there was no specific evidence of entrustment of property with the accused.

Final Decision: The court allowed the application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., quashed the summoning order, and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for further consideration.

ORDER :- This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to quash the summoning order dated 16-1-2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in complaint case No. 2652 of 2006 Smt. Ranjana v. Nagendra and others.

2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint against the accused applicants with these allegations that her marriage had taken place with accused No. 1 Nagendra Kumar in the year 2004 and sufficient dowry was given to her husband and in-laws at the time of marriage. The accused No. 2 Ram Bahadur is her father-in-law, accused No. 3 Raghurani is her mother-in-law, accused No. 4 Km. Manju is unmarried sister-in-law (Nanad), accused No. 5 and 6 Rajendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar are her brothers-in-law (Jeth), accused Nos. 7 and 8 Smt. Kusum Devi and Smt. Babita are wife of Rajendra Kumar and Mahendra Kumar, respectively they all are residents of village Agarpatti, P. S. Phoolpur, district Allahabad.

3. It is alleged that all these accused were committing atrocities upon her in connection with demand of dowry and on 2-10-2006 they after keeping her Stridhan whose particulars were given in the list attached with the complaint, beat her with fists and legs and forced her to leave the house. Then she came to her parents house and went to Police Station Phoolpur to lodge a report of the incident, but due to pressure of the accused, the report was hot lodged. She also informed the S.S.P. about this incident, but of no avail. Then she filed this complaint under Section 406, I.P.C.

4. The complainant examined herself under Section 200, Cr. P. C. and her mother Vimla Devi and witness Ashok Kumar under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate, after taking the above evidence, was of the view that there appeared a case under Section 406, I.P.C. against all the accused persons. Hence he passed order for summoning them as accused persons. Aggrieved with that order, the accused filed this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The applicants filed affidavit of Nagendra Kumar applicant No. 1 in support of this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. A counter affidavit of the complainant Smt. Ranjana was filed in reply to the above affidavit of Nagendra Kumar. Nagendra Kumar filed rejoinder affidavit also in reply to the counter affidavit.

5. I have gone through all these documents and have also heard learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the applicant first of all submitted before me that to constitute an offence under Section 406, I.P.C it is very essential that there must be entrustment of the property with the accused and in this connection he referred to Section 405, I.P.C. which defines the offence of criminal breach of trust; and runs as under :

"Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in this case there is no specific averment in the entire complaint to this effect that the Stridhan of the complainant was entrusted with any accused. He referred to para 6 of the complaint. It runs as under :

"Dinank 2-10-2006 ko Abhiuktgan ne prarthini ka sara saman jo suchee me diya gaya hai rakh liya tatha prarthini ko lat ghooson se markar ghar se nikal diya"

7. He also referred to the statement of Smt. Ranjana under Section 200, Cr. P. C. The relevant portion of which is as under :

"Dinak 2-10-2006 Abhiuktgan ne laat, ghooson se markar ghar se nikal diya aur pichhe suchi me varnit sara saman rakh liya"

8. He submitted








Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top