HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINIAL PETITION No.6377 of 2023

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2, to quash the proceedings against them in FIR No.404 of 2023 on the file of Station House Officer, KPHB Colony Police Station, for the offences punishable under Section 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 got married with the son of the petitioners viz. P. Hemanth Varma on 14.06.2020. Prior to the marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 gave an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioners as Stridhan. It is further alleged in the report that at the time of giving the amount it was clearly informed to the petitioners that the said amount is meant for safe keeping and has to be transferred to respondent No.2 after her marriage. In spite of transferring the said amount to respondent No.2, the petitioners said to have misappropriated for which the complaint was preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the son of the petitioners got married with respondent No.2 on 14.06.2020 and it is the custom prevailing in the family of the petitioners and respondent No.2 that at the time of marriage, the bride has to give gifts to her sister-in-law. Due to prevailing Covid situations the said gifts were paid in the form of bank transfers. At that time, the daughter of the petitioners was not a tax assesse and hence, the said gift amounts were paid to the account of the petitioners. In return the daughter of the petitioners also presented with six (6) gold bangles, two (2) buja bandhus, weighing about 200 grams of gold to respondent No.2 and the same were worn by respondent No.2 at the time of wedding.

4. As the matter stood thus, the petitioners received a legal notice dated 20.03.2023 which was issued as per the instructions of respondent No.2. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a legal notice of respondent No.2 clearly discloses that hand-loan was requested by the petitioners from the parents of respondent No.2 and to return the same within fifteen (15) days from 26.05.2020 and the contents of the legal notice alleged that despite of lapse of fifteen (15) days and even after persistent requests by the parents of respondent No.2, the petitioners refused to pay the said amount, for which the legal notice was issued.

5. It is further contended that the contents of the legal notice are contrary to the complaint/report of respondent No.2 which was subsequently made after issuance of the legal notice. The word Stridhan was not at all referred in the legal notice which was found in the complaint copy and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. Further, it is contended that it would not amount to the offence under Section 406 of IPC.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners contending that the amount was deposited in the account of the petitioners as Stridhan. Prior to the marriage of respondent No.2 with a contention that it shall be transferred to the account of respondent No.2 as there was misappropriation of amounts and the petitioners are to be tried for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

8. On perusal of the complaint copy, it is evident that respondent No.2 got married with the son of the petitioners on 14.06.2020. Prior to her marriage, her father K.N.Srinivasa Raju gave a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards Stridhan to respondent No.2 and said amount was transferred from her father account to in-laws account and it was made clear to them that the said amount is Stridhan property and it has