A woman has absolute ownership over her stridhan, and her father lacks the right to claim it post-divorce without her authorization.

J U D G M E N T

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against an order of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 22nd December, 2022 passed in Criminal Petition No.11528 of 2022, whereby the High Court refused to quash proceedings arising out of C.C.No.1369 of 2022 on the file of XXVIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar, under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code , 18601 and Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961.

3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :

3.1 The complaint, which set in motion the Criminal Law, was at the instance of one Padala Veerabhadra Rao (Respondent No.2 referred to as the complainant herein), who filed the same against the former in-laws of his elder daughter, namely, Padala Sujana Sheela Kumar (referred to as the daughter) for not returning the ornaments (gold) which he had given at the time of her marriage with their son. The marriage was solemnized on 22nd December, 1999.

3.2 Undisputably, the marriage was unsuccessful and after a period of approximately 16 years, the complainant’s daughter on 14th August, 2015 filed for divorce in the United States of America. The decree of divorce was granted by mutual consent by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, on 3rd February, 2016. At that time, all possessions, material and financial, were settled between the parties by way of the Separation Agreement. Hence, all issues arising out of matrimony stood closed as the daughter got remarried in the U.S.A. in May, 2018.

1 ‘IPC’ for brevity

3.3 Much thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR No.32 of 2021 dated 15th January, 2021, under Section 406 IPC pertaining to the return of the jewellery which he had given to his daughter at the time of her marriage as ‘stridhan’, but entrusted it to her-in laws (present-appellants)

3.4 It is necessary to record the complainant’s version of events. At the time of getting his daughter married in the year 1999, he had given 40 Kasula gold and other articles. Thereafter, the newly married couple migrated to the U.S.A where the complainant’s daughter was continually tortured, due to which the complainant’s wife was severely disturbed and eventually passed away on 6th June, 2008. His daughter and son-in-law got their divorce in the year 2016, after 16 years of marriage. Such articles given to his daughter during the marriage were entrusted at that time to the in-laws i.e., the appellant Nos.1 and 2.

3.5 Whereafter, the complainant’s daughter got remarried in the year 2018 for which purpose the complainant had travelled to the U.S.A. Upon returning therefrom, allegedly he made requests to the former in-laws of his daughter (appellants herein) to return the articles entrusted to them. Such requests remained unheeded with the articles yet to be recovered.

3.6 In the course of investigation, notice dated 16th June, 2022, under Section 41(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 19732 was sent to Mulakala Malleshwara Rao (Appellant No.1, the father-in- law of the complainant’s daughter). He denied all allegations and contended that the complaint has been filed with an intent to cause harassment.

3.7 Upon completion of the investigation, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under the Sections noted above.

3.8 The appellant No.1, aggrieved thereby filed a petition for quashing of the charges, under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. The High Court found the allegations made in the charge-sheet, prima facie to be triable. As such, the prayer to exercise such powers was rejected.

5. In the above context, the short point for consideration is whether the father i.e., the complainant herein, had any locus to file the First Information Report which has led to the present proceedings keeping in view that the same was affected by delay and laches, thereby expressly being non-maintainable? Contingent to the answer to this question would be, whether the High Court was correct in refusing to exercise