Point of Law: It is well settled law that articles given at the time of marriage by the parents, friends and husband are Stridhan.

JUDGMENT :

MOHD. ASLAM, J.

1. Since both the applications arise out of the same proceedings, they are being decided by this common order.

2. Heard Sri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants, Smt. Pooja Saxena, opposite party no. 2 appearing in person as well as Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been moved seeking quashing of the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 203 of 2017 (Smt. Pooja Saxena vs Vivek Mathur and others), under Section 406 I.P.C. Police Station-Hari Parwat, District-Agra, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5 as well as summoning order dated 03.07.2017 whereby applicants have been summoned to face trial under Section 406 I.P.C.

4. In brief, prosecution case is that opposite party no. 2/complainant lodged a criminal complaint in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra alleging therein that presently she along with her minor son is residing with her mother who is an old lady and suffering from brain cancer at House No. 307, Siddharth Apartment near Civil Court Compound, Police Station Hari Parwat, District Agra. The marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant Vivek Mathur on 22.01.2003 who is resident of B-8, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur, Rajasthan. In marriage, family members of opposite party no. 2 had spent about a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. The family members of her in-laws were not pleased with dowry given in her marriage. At the time of marriage jewellery of gold and silver, cash and other articles were given as gift. The applicants and Smt. Shalini Handoo, sister-in-law of opposite party no. 2, had kept her stridhan jointly. After marriage, opposite party no. 2 was harassed and maltreated by her husband and his family members due to demand of additional dowry. In the year 2004, the applicant Vivek Mathur got job and opposite party no. 2 moved to Bangalore along with her husband where also she was physically and mentally harassed by her husband. In December, 2008 opposite party no. 2 gave birth to a son, thereafter, behavior of her in-laws become more cruel towards her. While opposite party no. 2 was residing with her husband at Bangalore, her husband filed a divorce petition with mala-fide intention in the Family Court, Jaipur. On 15.02.2015 opposite party no. 2 had gone to Jaipur from Bangalore to attend the case. Due to threat extended by the applicants and her financial crisis, opposite party no. 2 along with her minor son came Agra on 16.02.2015 and started living with her mother. The applicants were using and damaging her Stridhan and they had denied its access to opposite party no. 2. Thereafter, on 17.10.2015, opposite party no. 2 sent legal notice to the applicants and her sister-in-law for returning her Stridhan. The notice was received by the applicants but the notice sent to Smt. Shalini Handoo was got returned with the connivance of the postman with endorsement that she was not found on repeated visit. On 27.08.2016, opposite party no. 2 again sent notice to the applicants for returning her Stridhan which was refused by them. In spite of repeated notice, applicants were not returning her Stridhan and were misusing it. Thereafter, the instant complaint was filed on 19.01.2017 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Agra and later on it was transferred to the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Agra.

5. It is alleged that opposite party no. 2, wife of applicant Vivek Mathur, has filed a complaint case against the applicants on 19.01.2017 in which statements of the complainant and witnesses Madhubala, mother of the complainant, and Sunil Kumar Jain were recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and the applicants were summoned to face trial for offence punishable under Section 406 I.P.C. vide order dated 03.07.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrat