A general allegation of non-return of dowry articles is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust under Sections 405 and 406 IPC; specific details of entrustment and dishonest misappropriation must be pleaded, regardless of the statutory obligations under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.06.2016 passed in Criminal Revision No. 459/2016 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior (M.P.), whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior was dismissed, thereby affirming the said order.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the deceased, Sushma, was the daughter of the petitioner. Her marriage was solemnized on 06.05.2013 with Praduman Singh, son of Shyam Sunder, resident of D.D. Nagar, Gwalior. Within six months of the marriage, Sushma died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. It is alleged that soon after the marriage, and even prior thereto, her husband and in-laws started demanding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- and other articles as additional dowry and subjected her to continuous cruelty and harassment for fulfillment of the said demand. Since the petitioner and his family were unable to meet the unlawful demand of such a huge amount, the deceased was subjected to extreme physical and mental torture and ultimately murdered by her husband and in-laws on 03.11.2013. On the basis of the said incident, Police Station Maharajpura registered Crime No. 321/2013 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and in-laws of the deceased. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the competent court. However, despite the availability of material, the police failed to seize or recover the dowry articles and a cash amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the accused persons, for reasons best known to them. The petitioner thereafter submitted a written complaint to Police Station Maharajpura on 12.04.2014 requesting recovery of the dowry articles from the in-laws of his deceased daughter, but no action was taken. The petitioner also caused a legal notice dated 21.04.2014 to be issued through his counsel demanding return of the dowry articles and money, but the respondents failed to comply with the said notice. Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 clearly provides that where any dowry has been received by any person other than the woman, such person shall transfer the same to the woman, and where the woman has died, to her heirs. The said provision further casts a statutory obligation upon the person who has received or who is in control of the dowry articles to return the same to the lawful claimant, i.e., the father or legal heirs of the deceased woman. In view of the above, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for offences punishable under Sections 405 and 406 of the IPC read with Section 6 (3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. However, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on technical grounds, completely ignoring the mandatory provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act and without applying a judicious mind. The learned Revisional Court also failed to appreciate the factual and legal position that Section 6 of the Act recognizes that dowry articles are meant exclusively for the benefit of the wife and not for the family members of the in-laws, and mechanically affirmed the order of dismissal. The impugned orders suffer from serious legal infirmities and have resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed invoking the inherent powers of