GULAB GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall give the decision of Criminal Revision No. 700 of 1985 (Firoza Mehboob v. Qumar Ali Shah and another) filed by the complainant in the case and direct against the same impugned order. ( 2 ) THIS revision tiled under sections 397/ 410 Cri. P. C. is directed against the order dated 13. 6. 1985 passed by Kumari, Kshipra Jha, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 641 of 85 refusing to frame charge against the non-applicant and thereby acquitting him of offences under sections 40. 5 and 406. I P. C. ( 3 ) NON-APPLICANT was admittedly married to one Firoza Mehboob, the revision petitioner in Cri. Revision No. 700 of 85 on 22/10/1980 Unfortunately, their marriage could not last long and therefore the non-applicant divorced her on 25-8. 82. The said Firoza Mehboob lodged a complaint with the police authorities that she had received ornaments, clothes, utensils etc. from parents and relatives as gift at the time of the marriage of which she was the exclusive owner. According to her, complaint, the said property was delivered to the non-applicant at the time of Rukhsat and non-applicant signed the list of the property in acknowledgement of the receipt. She further complained that after divorce the non-applicant failed to return the property willfully and intentionally. Since the property belonged exclusively to the complainant and the non-applicant held the sane in trust, his failure to return amounted to offence punishable under sections 405/406, I. P. C. on the aforesaid complaint the matter was investigated by the police authorities who ultimately filed challan against the respondent No. 1 alleging offence under section 405 read with section 406. I. P. C. The matter was taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 13/6/1985 for framing of charge. It however appears that the non-applicant had on 11/1/1985 filed 3 documents as per list to show that he had always been willing to return the property of the complainant. But it was the complainant who had (not cared to receive the same. These documents were taken on record and considered while deciding whether challan should be framed or not. Relying on these documents the learned Magistrate held that they prayed that the non-applicant had no intention of misappropriating the complaint's property. On this conclusion the non-applicant was discharged. But it was the complainant who had (not cared to receive the same. These documents were taken on record and considered while deciding whether challan should be framed or not. Relying on these documents the learned Magistrate held that they prayed that the non-applicant had no intention of misappropriating the complaint's property. On this conclusion the non-applicant was discharged. That is how the matter is before this Court. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel of both the parties this Court has reached the conclusion that this revision must be allowed. It cannot be seriously disputed that allegations as contained in Police-challan made out a case, at least prima facie under sectiolls 405/ 406, I. P. C. Challan papers included a written complaint by Firoza Mehboob which formed basis of first information report and a list of property allegedly signed by the non applicant acknowledging receipt of the said property. That these properties were not returned is clear from the statement of Firoza Mehboob and her witnesses, filed along with challan papers. Nothing more was required to prima facie establish a case under sections 405/406, I. P. C. In the context of these clear, specific and unambiguous allegations the prosecution was entitled to prove thet case. Police papers further proved that only some of the articles were returned and not everything in the list. What the learned Magistrate had done is to accept the defence of the non-applicant without even requiring him to prove the same and without giving the prosecution an opportunity to test the validity thereof. That is not how the trial is held in a court of law. The manner in which the learned Magistrate has proceeded with it only indicates her ignorance of the: legal requirements of a trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure besides her casualness in the matter. This Court is painfully observing the casualness because the learned Magistrate has noticed (Pratibha Ranis case1, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the non. applicant, but has neither considered the same nor applied the ranis thereof to the facts of the case. Pratibha Ranis case (supra ). Though started on a complaint in the Court dealt with the property received by the wife during her marriage and kept with the husband. applicant, but has neither considered the same nor applied the ranis thereof to the facts of the case. Pratibha Ranis case (supra ). Though started on a complaint in the Court dealt with the property received by the wife during her marriage and kept with the husband. Expressing their opinion about the articles received during marriage and entrusted to the husband the Supreme Court observed as under: A perusal of the list reveals that so far as the Jewellary and clothes, blouses, night and gowns are concerned they could be used only by the wife and were her stridhan. By no stretch of imagination would it be said that the ornaments and sarees and other articles mentioned above could also be used by the husband. If, therefore, despite demands these articles were refused to be returned to the wife by the husband and his parents, it amounted to an offence of criminal breach of trust. In mentioning the articles in the list, we have omitted furniture and utensils, which though also belonged to the complainant yet there is some room for saying that these were meant for joint use of the husband and wife. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING refusal of the husband to return these properties and consequences thereof the Supreme Court held as under: We are clearly of the opinion that the mere factum of the husband and wife living together does not entitle either of them to commit a breach of criminal law and if one does then he/she will be liable for all the consequences of such breach. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as any where else. Criminal law and matrimonial home are not strangers. Crimes committed in matrimonial home are as much punishable as any where else. In the case of stridhan property also, the title of which always remains with the wife though possession of the same may sometimes be with the husband or other members of his family, if the husband or any other member of his family commits such an offence, they will be liable to punishment for the offence of criminal breach of trust under sections 405 and 406 I. P. C: The ratio of the case is sumed up by the Supreme Court in the following words: To sum up, the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the same articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under section 406 of the I. P. C. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of hill wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the scope of Interference the Supreme Court recalled its earlier view in Nagawa v. Vereenna and held that the Magistrate acts jurisdiction to quash proceedings only where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make not absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused and emphasised that the only authority that judicial Magistrate has at the time of framing challan is to take all allegations as they are and without adding any thing or subtracting any thing to consider if the allegations do not prima facie amount to an offence of Criminal breach of trust Subsequent decision in J. P. Sharma v. Vinod Kumar has re-stated this legal position as under The question at this state is not whether there was any truth in the allegations made but the question is whether on the basis of the allegations, a cognizable offence or offence had been alleged to have been committed. The facts subsequently found out to prove the truth or otherwise on the allegation is not a ground on the basis of which the complaint can be quashed: ( 7 ) UNDER the circumstances, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Judicial Magistrate was not entitled to take the documents filed by the non-applicant into consideration and base her conclusion on those documents even without requising the non-applicant to prove the same. In the opinion of this Court, the papers included in Police challan clearly and specifically make out a prima facie case against the non-applicant sufficient to put him on trial for offences under sections 405/406, I. P. C. ( 8 ) IN view of the discussion aforesaid the revision succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set-aside. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to frame charge against the non-applicant for offence under sections 405/406, I. P. C. and put him on trial in accordance with law. .