Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—The revision has been filed against the summoning order dated 17.3.2012 passed by ACJM-III Bijor in criminal complaint case No. 212 of 2012 (Smt. Shaista v. Rafiuddin), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 6 of D.P. Act, P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bijnor.

2. Case called out. Learned counsel for the opposite party is not present.

3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionists contended that opposite party No. 2 has filed a false complaint against the revisionists as well as against her husband, in which the revisionists have been summoned for the offences under Section 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and 6 of D.P. Act, without considering the fact that the revisionist No. 1 is married nanad, revisionist No. 3 is unmarried nanad and revisionist No. 2 is daughter of nanad of the complainant; that there are no specific allegations against the revisionist Nos. 1,2 and 3 and they were ever entrusted with the property or articles allegedly given to complainant at the time of marriage and are not alleged to have taken them away or misappropriated any of them; that in view of the impugned summoning order, the case is in progress against husband of opposite party No. 2; that no specific allegations have been made against the revisionist Nos. 4 and 5, the father-in-law and mother-in-law and they also have not committed any offence ; that there is no injury report on record; that the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 (10) SCC 741, has observed that there is tendency of falsely implicating the unmarried and married nanads and other distant relatives in matrimonial disputes; that the learned Magistrate has failed to consider that revisionist No. 1 who is married nanad of complainant/opposite party No. 2 may not have participated in the alleged incident of marpeet and there is no prima facie evidence at least against the revisionist Nos. 1,2 and 3; that no offence under Section 406 is made out against the revisionist Nos. 1,2 and 3 and even no offence under Section 323, 504,506 and Section 6 of D.P. Act is made out against them; that the impugned summoning order has been passed in cyclostyled manner without due application of mind and is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order and contended that in the complaint, allegations have been made against all the six accused persons including husband of opposite party No. 2; that demand of dowry was made by all the accused persons jointly and all are alleged to have committed marpeet with opposite party No. 2 and hurled abuses and threats on her.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I find that according to Section 405 IPC, the offence of criminal breach of trust is committed when a person who is entrusted in any manner with the property or with any dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes if of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the trust is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. Thus in the commission of the offence of criminal breach of trust, two distinct parts are involved. The first consists of the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control is acquired by the accused. The second is a misappropriation or dealing with the property dishonestly and contrary to the terms of the obligation created.

7. The perusal of copy of complainant at Annexure-1 and statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. at Annexure-2 show that revisionist Nos. 1,2 and 3 are respectively married nanad, daughter of nanad and unmarried nanad of the complainant/opposite party No. 2 while revisionist Nos. 4 and 5 are her mother-in-law and fath