M. K. Chawla, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Rekha Anand is the wife of the petitioner Shri S. C. Anand. Their marriage was performed according to Hindu rites at New Delhi on 24 1. 65. At the time of her marriage, the parents of Rekha respondent gave her several articles, including-jewellery, silver wares, clothes, etc. in dowry, which were taken into possession by her husband and his parents. Later on. the petitioner with the consent of his wife took the costly items of jewellery and deposited, in the locker of Delhi Safe Deposit at Janpath, New Delhi standing in the name of his parents. In the third week of August 1965, Mr. Anand was transferred to India Supply Mission in London an his wife followed him soon after. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the respondent that on reaching England, her husband started misbehaving with her and on many a time ill-treated and assaulted her. She, however, continued bearing all this harassment. . From the said wedlock, a female child Sumati was born on 6. 5. 67 in London. But this birth did not being any harmony in the family. As the conduct of the petitioner became unlearable, the respondent made a complaint in the Court of Action Magistrate, Patty Seasonal Division, of Willingdon, alleging persistent acts of cruelty. The petitioner was held guilty of persistent acts of cruelly to the complainant-respondent and she was declared no longer bound to cohabit with the petitioner. By the same order, the legal custody of the child was given to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent started living separately. The petitioner returned to India after the completion of his tenure whereas the respondent, continued living in England where she was gainfully employed. ( 3 ) IN the month of October, 1977, the petitioner filed a petition for divorce against the respondent on various grounds which on contest was dismissed by the court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi on 25. 11. 83. The petitioner s appeal before the High Court met the same fate on 15. 2. 5. During the course of hearing of the Appeal, Justice D. R. Khanna made efforts for reconccilliation but it did not yield any fruit. Left with no other option the respondent filed a complaint u/s. 406 Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on 26. 8. 2. 5. During the course of hearing of the Appeal, Justice D. R. Khanna made efforts for reconccilliation but it did not yield any fruit. Left with no other option the respondent filed a complaint u/s. 406 Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, on 26. 8. 85 alleging therein that ever since her marriage, all the articles of dowry have all along remained in the custody of her husband and his parents. These costly items were never given back to her in spite of repeated requests. Left with no option,, she sent a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to return all the items of dowery shown in the attached list belonging to her. But in spite of the same, the petitioner has not cared to send any reply. Since they have dishonestly and mala fide retained the aforesaid articles in order to make wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the respondent, they may be summoned and punished according to law. ( 4 ) IN support of her complaint, she examined herself and produced her father as a witness. By a detailed order dated 28. 9. 85 Shri R. K. Jain M. M. found a prima facie case and took cognizance against the petition only and directed that he be summoned to stand trial for the offence u/s. 406 Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the said complaint, the petitioner filed two applications, the first being that the respondent be directed to produce two registered covers addressed to the petitioner alleged to contain lawyers notices , and in the second application, the petitioner prayed for his discharged and dropping of all the proceedings agaist him. Shri D. R. Jain, M. M. before whom the proceedings were pending allowed the first application of the petitioner directing the respondent to place on record the doduments asked for by the petitioner- However, the second application was. rejected. It is against this very order that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. According to him, the petitioner has been summoned u/s 406. Indian Penal Code. rejected. It is against this very order that the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order on two grounds. According to him, the petitioner has been summoned u/s 406. Indian Penal Code. for which punishment provided is to the extent of 3 years and as such the complaint should have been filed within a period of 3 years from the date of judicial separation on 5. 6. 69. Secondly, there is no entrustment of the so-called items of dowry, including jewellery to the petitioner and as such he cannot be held responsible for its return. ( 7 ) TAKING the second ground at the first instance, the petitioner submitted that the respondent in the year 1980 filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner seeking. divorce and in the said petition, she never mentioned her ownership of the alleged goods given to her at the time of the marriage. He also placed reliance on the part of the statement of the respondent wherein she admitted having kept all items of jewellery forming part of the dowry in the locker of her parents-in-law. The submission is that at no point of time, the petitioner had the domain over the said property and as such the respondent is estopped from holding the petitioner responsible for keeping back the items ofjewellery. ( 8 ) I am afraid, this argument is quite contrary to the evidence on record I have carefully perused the statement of Miss Rekha Anand, respondent and her father produced before the Magistrate in support of her complaint u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. Throughout, her stand has been that the gold ornaments weighing about 5 tolas were entrusted by her and her father to accused No. 1, 2 and 3, i. e. the petitioner and his parents. Later on, the jewellery and other costly items -were taken by the petitioner and kept in the locker standing in the name of his parents for safe custody. ( 9 ) AT this stage, we may note that when the learned lower court framed the charge against the petitioner only u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. , the respondent filed a revision petition in the court of the Addl. ( 9 ) AT this stage, we may note that when the learned lower court framed the charge against the petitioner only u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. , the respondent filed a revision petition in the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi, claiming that as the entrustment of the property was also given to respondents 2 and 3, a charge against them should also have been framed. By a detailed order, this contention was repelled and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was confirmed. That order has become final. In view of these circumstances, I have no reason to conclude otherwise, that the property was not entrusted to the petitioner. ( 10 ) WITH regard to the first contention of the petitioner, I may only quote the observations of D. R. Khanna, J. in appeal F. A. O. (M)7/84 re : S. C. Anand v. Rekha Anand : "during the course of the hearing of the present appeal, efforts for reconciliation were made, but the petitioner at this stage too was not inclined to admit her back. It then came up for consideration whether the parties should otherwise legally part when the marriage appears to have failed. In this regard, it must be said that the respondent came out with written submits on which the marriage could bedissolved. Those suggestion were on the face of them fair and reasonable, and the petitioner should have avail them. However, he seems to persist in having the best of everything and the greed of ornaments and other articles given to the respondent at the time of the marriage seems to be clouding his judgment. Those suggestion were on the face of them fair and reasonable, and the petitioner should have avail them. However, he seems to persist in having the best of everything and the greed of ornaments and other articles given to the respondent at the time of the marriage seems to be clouding his judgment. The suggestions from the side of the respondent were that a decree for divorce could be granted without casting any aspersion on her, that the judgment should be pronounced in the presence of the daughter so that she was made aware that the mother was not be blame for the breakdown, that she should always have the liberty to meet the daughter without any let or hindrance from the petitioner and/or his parents, that if she was required to undergo arranged marriage, then the respondent should as well be consulted and allowed to give her best advice, and in any case she must be invited at the marriage of her daughter, that the guardianship proceedings which have been initiated by the mother of the petitioner with respect to the daughter, should be withdrawn, and that the jewellery items given to the respondent at the time of her marriage be returned to her, or kept in safe custody so that she could give them to her daughter on the occasion of her marriage. In case the jewellery was not available, the equivalent amount thereon could be set apart, and given to her or kept in safe custody for utilisation at the time of the daughter s marriage. " ( 11 ) ALL these offers of the respondent were not accepted by the petitioner and his pleas to the contrary were dismissed with valid reasons and ultimately, his appeal was dismissed. It comes to that during the pendency of. the appeal, the respondent in the year 1985 also insisted for the return of the items of dowry, the list of which was furnished to the petitioner during the conciliatory proceedings. Thereafter, the respondent has sent a notice of demand through her. counsel for the return of itemsof jewellery, silver-wares and wearing apparels belonging to the respondent which were entrusted to the petitioner and his parents at the time of the marriage. This registered notice dated 17. 7. 85 has come back unserved as the petitioner was reported to be out of station. counsel for the return of itemsof jewellery, silver-wares and wearing apparels belonging to the respondent which were entrusted to the petitioner and his parents at the time of the marriage. This registered notice dated 17. 7. 85 has come back unserved as the petitioner was reported to be out of station. Even though the petitioner can say that he has not been served with this notice but he cannot deny the demand which was made during the pendency of his appeal in this Court. Taking that circumstance into consideration. tion, it cannot be said that the demand is barred by limitation. ( 12 ) IN view of this finding, I do not propose to go into the question as to whether the offence u/s 406 Indian Penal Code. is continuing one or not. Learned lower court has rightly rejected both the pleas of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN the result, I do not find any substance in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.