Back
2008 Supreme(All) 1204
[2008(7) ADJ 746]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : R.K. RASTOGI, J.
Smt. PRAKASH KAUR AND OTHERS ........Applicants
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER ...........Opposite Parties
(Criminal Misc. Application No. 18488 of 2005, decided on 21st May, 2008)
Counsel :
Arvind Singh for the Applicants; A.R. Dubey, Amit Dubey, A.G.A. for the Opposite Parties.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 482, 200 and 202—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 406 and 498-A—Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 13—Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961—Section 4—Complaint—Summoning order—Recalling of—Allegation made in complaint that applicants have misappropriated “Stridhan” which was given at time of marriage—Statement of complainant and witnesses recorded—Magistrate was of view that prima facie case under Section 406 of IPC made out against accused persons—Summoning order passed—However, on basis of compromise entered between parties—Civil Court passed a decree of divorce under Section 13 of Act—Entrustment of items took place at Aligarh at time of marriage of complainant with accused—Court at Aligarh has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of offence—If items given to another person by husband—That person cannot held responsible for misappropriation—Because there is no direct relationship between wife and that person—Since entrustment is with husband alone—Other family members can’t be said to have committed offence of misappropriation—No joint entrustment permissible—No proceeding lie except against husband. [Paras 9, 10 and 11]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized with appropriate referencing:
-
The case involves allegations of misappropriation of ‘Stridhan’ and other articles given at the time of marriage, which are entrusted to the accused persons with the understanding they would be delivered to the wife upon reaching her husband's house (!) .
-
The complaint was filed after the marriage ended in divorce, with the allegation that the accused did not return the ‘Stridhan’ and misappropriated it, constituting an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (!) .
-
The Magistrate initially summoned all accused persons under Section 406 IPC based on the prima facie evidence that suggested their involvement in misappropriation (!) .
-
The applicants challenged the proceedings under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), asserting that the complaint lacked jurisdiction because the entrustment of items occurred at Aligarh, and thus, the Court at Aligarh has jurisdiction to try the case (!) .
-
The applicants argued that the civil divorce decree and the compromise agreement, which included the understanding about the ‘Stridhan,’ indicate that the entrustment and related issues were settled, and therefore, no criminal offence under Section 406 IPC was made out against them (!) .
-
The opposing party contended that the ‘Stridhan’ had not been returned and that the complaint was filed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Aligarh, which had proper territorial jurisdiction, especially considering the offence’s commission was linked to the location of the entrustment (!) .
-
The court examined relevant legal principles regarding jurisdiction, especially noting that the entrustment took place at the place of marriage in Aligarh, conferring jurisdiction to the Court there (!) .
-
The court also considered prior rulings on the responsibility of family members, emphasizing that the primary entrustment of ‘Stridhan’ is with the husband, and other family members cannot be held responsible unless there is direct involvement or joint entrustment (!) (!) .
-
The court found that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case against the accused applicants (the mother and sister), as the entrustment was with the husband alone, and they could not be held responsible for misappropriation (!) .
-
Accordingly, the court partly allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., quashing the proceedings and the summoning order against the applicants Smt. Prakash Kaur and Harmeet Kaur alias Pinky, while maintaining the order of cognizance against the husband, Mahendra Pal Singh (!) .
-
The order was disposed of with the direction that proceedings against the accused applicants Smt. Prakash Kaur and Harmeet Kaur alias Pinky be quashed, but the case against Mahendra Pal Singh continues (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this case.
Hon’ble R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 645/05, Smt. Devendra Kaur v. Mahender Pal Singh and others, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh and to recall the summoning order dated 30.8.05 passed by the learned C.J.M., Aligarh in that case.
2. The facts relevant for disposal of this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. are that the complainant opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint against the accused-applicants in the Court of the learned C.J.M., Aligarh with these allegations that the marriage of complainant opposite party No. 2 had taken place with accused-applicant No. 3 Mahendra Pal at the paternal house of opposite party No. 2 in Shyam Nagar P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh on 21.4.1996. In that marriage the father of opposite party No. 2 and her other relations had given dowry as well as ‘Stridhan’ and incurred other expenses as mentioned in the list (1) attached with the complaint, and all these items were entrusted with accused-applicant No. 3 and his mother applicant No. 1 and sister applicant No. 2 with this understanding that all these items would be delivered to opposite party No. 2 on reaching her husband’s house. The accused, however, were not satisfied with the dowry and were demanding one lakh rupees in cash. In the month of June, 1997, they forced the opposite party No. 2 to leave the house after keeping her all ornaments, clothes and ‘Stridhan.’ She was pregnant at that time. She came to her father’s house at Shyam Nagar, Aligarh, and since June, 1997 she had been residing at her father’s house. She gave birth to a son on 3.8.1997 in a nursing home. Since accused-applicant No. 3 was not ready to keep her with him as his wife, she filed Suit No. 696/99, Smt. Devendra Kaur v. Mahendra Pal Singh, for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aligarh. Mahendra Pal Singh refused to keep the complainant opposite party No. 2 as wife and so ultimately a divorce took place between them by mutual consent on 9.5.2002. At that time, it was agreed that the ‘Stridhan’ of the complainant opposite party No. 2 shall be delivered to her. Her Stridhan and all her ornaments, clothes etc. and other items got at the time of marriage were entrusted with the accused persons and they were supposed to keep them properly. The complainant opposite party No. 2 filed a case for maintenance of her minor son and she demanded her ‘Stridhan’ in that case also, but the accused-applicant No. 3 did not return her ‘Stridhan’, and ultimately on 14.12.02 the complainant opposite party No. 2 with her father Preetam Singh Arora and witnesses Harbhajan Singh Gulati and Harmit Singh Gulati went to the house of the accused to demand her ‘Stridhan’ but they did not return the same. Then she gave a notice on 24.12.04 to the accused persons but the accused did not accept the notice and misappropriated her ‘Stridhan, and in this way they had committed an offence punishable under Section 406, I.P.C. It was therefore prayed that action should be taken against accused persons. This complaint was filed on 18.1.2005.
3. Learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant opposite party No. 2 under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and of her father Preetam Singh Arora and other witnesses Harbhajan Singh Gulati and Harmit Singh Gulati under Section 202, Cr.P.C. was of the view that a prima facie case under Section 406, I.P.C. appeared against the accused Mahendra Pal Singh, his mother Smt. Prakash Kaur and sister Harmeet Kaur @ Pinky. Therefore, the learned Magistrate summoned all the accused persons under Section 406, I.P.C.
4. Aggrieved with that order the accused applicants have filed this application under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
5. The applicants have alleged in the affidavit of Mahendra Pal Singh, filed in support of the application, that the opposite party No. 2 had voluntarily left the house of the applicants
