Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Smt. Sobha Jain was married with Sushil Kumar Jain on 26.11.1983. As per the complaint made by her on 9.5.89 at police station Hazrat Nizzamuddin, for a few months her marital life pulled on well. There after she was harassed and forced to bring more dowry. In order to make her marital life smooth and happy, her parents paid Rs. 10,000/- on two occasions. A demand of a bungalow in South Delhi was also made but her parents could not fulfilll that demand as it was beyond their reach. She was subjected to maltreatment and cruelty. In March, 1987 she was turned out from her marital house. With the intervention of the relatives and other respectable known to both the parties she was taken back in December, 1987. For 2-3 months there was no cause of grievance. During this period she became pregnant and again a demand of a house or cash of Rs. 15 lakhs in lieu thereof was made. On her telling that the demand could not be met she was turned out from the house after giving beatings in May, 1988. In October, 1988, she gave birth to a female child and on the intervention of relations and friends known to both the parties, she was again taken back along with the child. After staying there for few months she returned back to her parents house alleging harassment and cruelty and lodged a criminal complaint before the police of non-return of dowry articles and Istridhan as well as the cruelty perpetrated by her husband and other members of the family who included her parents-in-law, the married sister-in-law, brothers-in-law and two unmarried young sisters-in-law. Challan was filed against as many as seven members of the famliy, namely, the husband, parents-in-law, married sister-in-law Kauslaya Devi, brother-in-law Satish; unmarried sisters-in-law Kumari Sushma and Nisha for the offences punishable Under Section 498A and Section 406 IPC.

4. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the challan was filed did not filed any case even on prima facie grounds against Kumari Nisha and Kumari Sushma, the unmarried teenaged sisters-in-law either under Section 406 or Section 498A IPC and they were ordered to be discharged.

No case Under Section 406 IPC was also found against the other five accused. However, they were ordered to be proceed with Under Section 498A IPC.

5. On revision the learned Addl. Sessions Judge quashed the charge against the other two accused i.e. married brother-in-law Satish and married sister-in-law Kaushalaya. However, Shri Sushil Jain-husband was ordered to be proceeded with for the offence punishable under Section 406 and 498A IPC. The parents-in-law namely Sukhbir Singh and Smt. Mundri Devi were ordered to be proceeded with for offences punishable Under Section 498A IPC.

8. Keeping in view the settled legal position it is to be seen, in the present circumstances of the case, whether the uncontroverter allegations, as made, prima facie establish the offence against the petitioners and whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue.

9. Regarding offence Under Section 406 IPC to specific allegation has been made as to which item was entrusted to whom and when she demanded back those articles and from whom and he/she refused. To constitute an offence Under Section 406 IPC it is essential that there must be a clear and specific allegation that the accused was entrusted with some property or with dominion or power over it by the complainant and that the accused dishonestly misappropriated the same or converted the same to his own use and that the accused refused to return back these articles when the same were demanded by the complainant. Mere general allegations made in the complaint concerning entrustment of articles of dowry to all the accused at the time of marriage or such like vague allegations would not be sufficient to prima facie make out a cognizable offence Under Section 406 IPC. The allegations made by the complainant show that there are no clear, distinct and specific allegations regarding entrustment to the petitioners, dishonest misappropriation by them or conversion to their own use and refusal by them to return back the articles. The most vital and essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 406 IPC are missing and as such no prima facie case against the petitioners Under Section 406 IPC is spelt out from the allegations made in the complaint. The concerned Metropolitan Magistrate has rightly held it so but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has misinterpreted the provisions Section 406 IPC and the allegations made in the complainant while ordering that Sushil Jain petitioner be also proceeded with Under Section 406 IPC. No conviction can be made Under Section 406 IPC on the basis of vague and general allegations made in the complaint.

13. Keeping in view the increasing crime against married women, legislature in its wisdom passed various statutes and also made amendments in various existing statutes to the benefit of the married women but in many of the cases these beneficial provisions are being misused just to satisfy their feeling of revenge. This is one of those cases.

14. For the foregoing reasons, no case either Under Section 406 or Under Section 498A IPC is spelt out from the allegations made in the complaint. I allow both these petitions Crl. M (M) 802/91 and Crl. M (M) 803/91 and quash the proceedings under FIR No. 193/89 Under Section 406 and 498A IPC P.S. Hazarat Nizzamuddin, New Delhi against the petitioners Sukhbir Jain, Mundri Devi and Sushi Jain pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House New Delhi. The bail bonds stand discharged.