Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The case has a chequered history. Petitioner Tanu Sharma (the wife) entered into an inter-religion marriage, perhaps a love marriage with Respondent No.2 Akshod Kumar Sharma (the husband) on 11.08.1992.

3. The Petitioner made a written complaint dated 25.08.2006 to the DCP (North-West) alleging maltreatment and cruelty by her husband, Respondent No.2 since the inception of marriage. She stated in the complaint that at the time of marriage, the Respondent was employed with Overnight Express Courier Company, but after a few months, he joined another company and informed the Petitioner that he is undergoing studies for Chartered Accountancy (C.A.). He stopped going to office and carried on with his preparation for a period of two years, which was financed by the Petitioner. When eventually he could not clear his C.A., he took money from the Petitioner on the pretext of carrying out some business of shares and property dealing. Further, she states that she and the Respondent were maintaining a joint bank account and a joint locker since marriage. She alleges that in May 2004, the Respondent took away all her jewellery from the joint account without informing her and also withdrew all the money from the joint account and then went away. He came back again on 04.12.2004 and started asking for money. On the Petitioner's refusal to give the same, the Petitioner was badly beaten to the extent that she had to call the police. The Respondent also misbehaved with the Petitioner's aged father. When the police came, then the Respondent apologised. However, after 8-10 days, he again extended beatings and demanded money from her and terrorised the children and threatened the Petitioner that she would be killed. The wife further gave details of the incident dated 24.08.2006 wherein the husband abused, hit and manhandled her very harshly and she had to run and escape to the house of her neighbours to save her life.

6. The wife being dissatisfied with the discharge of the husband for the offences punishable under Sections 406/506 IPC has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that there were several instances of actual beatings caused by the husband to her as also to the children and thus, the learned ASJ erred in holding that there was absence of any intent to cause alarm to the wife while extending threats. He urges that in case of a husband and wife, when the jewellery is lying in a joint locker and the husband removes the same, he (the husband) will hold the jewellery only in trust of the wife. Thus, even in the absence of specific allegations of entrustment of the jewellery, its non-return will amount to criminal breach of trust.

11. As far as the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC is concerned, the details of the jewellery alleged to have been taken away from the joint locker has not been given. The allegations of removal of jewellery by the husband have been levelled on the basis of a letter dated 17.03.2007 written by Canara Bank to the effect that the joint locker was operated by the husband on 27.04.2004, 08.05.2004 and 29.03.2005. No report was lodged by the Petitioner immediately after coming to know of the operation of the locker by the husband. Even if it is assumed that the husband retained the jewellery after the same was taken out by him from the joint locker and the same was being held by him in trust for his wife, admittedly there was no demand or direction by the wife(the Petitioner) as to how the jewellery is to be dealt with. In the absence thereof, it cannot be said that the jewellery was misappropriated by the husband amounting to an offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.