Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1208 (PNJ)

Guljar Singh Alias Guljar Mohammad v. Hazran

2006-03-22

NIRMAL YADAV

body2006
Judgment Nirmal Yadav, J. 1. Vide this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek quashing of complaint dated 25.4.1996 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 3.4.1997 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-2) vide which the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC along with other co-accused. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is brother of Roshan Lal, husband of complainant and petitioner No. 2 Momtaj is wife of petitioner No. 1 while petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are married sisters of Roshan Lal. Complainant Hazran was married to Roshan Lal on 27.3.1994. No issue was born out of the wedlock. It was alleged by the complainant that her father had given Istri Dhan/dowry articles to the accused Roshan Lal and Hardial Singh at the time of marriage at village Sehra in the presence of villagers and other respectables. As per Exhibit A/Annexures P-1, petitioner No. 1-Guljar Singh was handed over two shirts and petitioner No. 2, 11 suit pieces, whereas, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were given 3 suits pieces at the time of marriage. It was further alleged that after the marriage the accused started pressurising the complainant for bringing more dowry i.e. Rs. 25,000/- cash for purchasing scooter, colour T.V. and refrigerator. She was given beatings by her husband Roshan on the instigation of the other accused. The complainant was treated with cruelty by her husband and other family members. The complainant further alleged that all the dowry articles, as mentioned in para 4 of the complaint, have been misappropriated and, therefore, offence under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC was made out against the accused. 3. After taking into consideration the evidence produced by the complainant, the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 3.4.1997 (Annexure P-2) has summoned the accused including the petitioners, to face trial under Section 406 read with Section 34 IPC. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the allegations contained in the complaint are cryptic, vague and not sufficient for the conviction of the petitioners. It is stated that the complainant has involved all the family members including the married sisters, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 just to harass and humiliate them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the allegations contained in the complaint are cryptic, vague and not sufficient for the conviction of the petitioners. It is stated that the complainant has involved all the family members including the married sisters, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 just to harass and humiliate them. As per the complaint, the only articles, entrusted to petitioner No. 1, are shirts, whereas, to petitioner No. 2, 11 suit pieces and to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, 3 suit pieces. It is argued that these articles were handed over as marriage gifts at the time of wedding and the same cannot be included in the Istri Dhan or dowry articles of the complainant. It is clearly mentioned in Annexure P-1 that these articles were for brother and other relatives and, therefore, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out. Learned counsel further argued that in order to establish an offence under Section 406 IPC, there must be dishonest misappropriation of the property entrusted. Criminal breach of trust has been defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads thus :- "405. Criminal breach of trust. - Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust." 6. To constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust there must be entrustment of the property or any dominion of the property which has been misappropriated dishonestly or converted to ones own use. However, in the present case, the shirts and suits had been given for the brothers and other relatives of the bridegroom i.e. husband of the complainant. These articles did not constitute Istri Dhan or dowry, as such, the said articles/property did not belong to the complainant. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 405 IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust, are not made out in the present case. These articles did not constitute Istri Dhan or dowry, as such, the said articles/property did not belong to the complainant. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 405 IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust, are not made out in the present case. The complainant has nowhere stated that any of the articles, which belong to the complainant, were entrusted to any of the four petitioners and that the same have been dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use by them. 7. It is generally seen that whenever a marriage goes in a rough weather, the tendency of the bride is to insinuate as many members of the family of her husband as possible with the allegation of demand for dowry and misappropriation of dowry articles. The allegations are made even against those members of the family of husband who have nothing to do with the dowry, which, at the most, is the concern of bride and bridegroom or, at best, the parents of the bridegroom. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted in a complaint registered by the complainant-Hazarn under Sections 325, 498A, 506, 120-B IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 9.2.2006. Even petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 have been discharged vide order dated 28.9.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib in a revision petition challenging framing of charge against them under Sections 498A and 120-B IPC. 8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to quash the complaint (Annexure P-1) as also the summoning order (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioners. Order accordingly.