Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2972 (PNJ)

Anupama @ Prabhjot Kaur v. Surinder Singh

2010-11-01

SABINA

body2010
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Complainant had filed the complaint under Section 406,498-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused-respondents. Vide order dated 29.7.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gurdaspur, the complaint qua respondents was dismissed. Hence, the present application has been filed by the complainant/appellant under Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for grant of leave to file an appeal against the order mentioned above. 2. The case of the complainant, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.1 of its judgment, reads as under :- “Complainant has filed this complaint against the accused persons under Section 406, 498-A IPC on the allegations that she was married with accused No.1 on 7.11.1997 as per Hindu Rites at Village Kahnuwan. At the time of marriage, huge dowry articles were given to all the accused. Out of said wedlock no child was born and the relation between the parties remained cordial for few months. Thereafter, the accused No.1 along with all the accused started raising demand of more dowry as they were not satisfied with the dowry articles give by the parents of the complainant at the time of marriage and the same were entrusted to all the accused persons. But all the accused were not satisfied from the dowry articles and complainant was given beatings mercilessly by the accused No.1 and accused Nos.3,4,5 and 6. On 2.12.1998, she was turned out of her matrimonial home in three wearing apparels and all the dowry articles and Istridhan was retained by all the accused on the same day. Since then she is residing in her parental home. Many efforts were made by the complainant, her parents and other respectable for the rehabilitation of complainant in her matrimonial home but all in vain. The accused No.1 filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, but when complainant put her appearance and filed an application u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed then instead of paying the maintenance, the accused no.1 got the petition dismissed in default on 1.12.2000. For the last one year, complainant along with her parents and respectable requested so many times to all the accused to return her dowry articles and Istridhan, if they do not want to bring the complainant in her matrimonial home,but all the accused finally refused to return the same, hence, this complaint .” 3. For the last one year, complainant along with her parents and respectable requested so many times to all the accused to return her dowry articles and Istridhan, if they do not want to bring the complainant in her matrimonial home,but all the accused finally refused to return the same, hence, this complaint .” 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of the opinion that no ground for grant of leave to file an appeal in this case is made out. 4. Learned trial Court in the impugned judgment has held as under :- “I have heard contentions of both the counsels and of considered view that the essential ingredients for establishing the offence under section 406 are (i) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over the property, (ii) the person entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his own use that property; or dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person to do so in violation of any direction of law prescribed the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of that property. However, is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. However, entrustment does not mean that the proprietary rights are also transferred. Moreover, it is a question of fact of each case as to how the property was given to the husband or any member of his family when she left the home or was driven out of the matrimonial home. In the present case it is also a question of fact that whether the complainant has entrusted the accused with the properties as per Ex.C1 the list of dowry articles. A reading of complaint and deposition of the complainant duly corroborated by the other witnesses of the complainant clearly indicates that her parents entrusted the property to the accused at the time of the marriage. When she left the matrimonial home she had not taken the property with her, but now point for consideration is whether the articles which were entrusted to accused are part of Istri Dhan and whether the accused has misappropriated these articles. I have gone through the evidence lead by the complainant and list of dowry article Ex.C1. When she left the matrimonial home she had not taken the property with her, but now point for consideration is whether the articles which were entrusted to accused are part of Istri Dhan and whether the accused has misappropriated these articles. I have gone through the evidence lead by the complainant and list of dowry article Ex.C1. Complainant when stepped into the witness box has stated that her parents gave Chain of 2 tola and kara of 2 tola and one gold ring to accused No. 1 Amarjit Singh and gave gold ring and clothes to accused Surinder Singh, gave gold car rings and clothes to both the mother-inlaws, gave one gold ring each and clothes to both the sister-inlaws and list of dowry articles given to all the accused. Further complainant in his complaint has mentioned that accused No. 1 Amarjit Singh was entrusted with one chain, one Kara of 40 gms, gold ring of 5.50 gms, 18 gents suits, 18 Turbans, 6 gents suits, iron box, kitchen utensils, 12 quilts, 12 talais, 12 bedding, one box bed, one sofa set, dressing table, dining table. Hence all the articles which were dowry articles were entrusted to the accused Amarjit Singh and the articles which were given to other accused cannot in any stretch of imagination be termed as dowry articles rather these articles were the traditional gifts which were given to the accused No.2 to 6 on occasion of marriage and none of these articles were given to accused No. 2 to 6 with the condition that these were for the exclusive use of the complainant and moreover these articles were for the use of the accuse No. 2 to 6 with the condition that these were for the exclusive use of the complainant and moreover these articles do not form the part of Istri Dhan and hence no misappropriation can be committed with respect of the articles given to accused No. 2 to 6.” “I have gone through the evidence lead by the complainant and found that complainant while appearing as witness has stated that after three-four months of marriage her in laws started behaving cruel towards her. Her husband Amarjit Singh under the influence of liquor gave her the beatings with hunter. Her husband Amarjit Singh under the influence of liquor gave her the beatings with hunter. But so far the allegations against the other accused these are only general in nature and no specific act of cruelty has been attributed to the appearing accused. Further Swaran Singh CW2 the father of the complainant during his cross examination has admitted that he do not know the date, month or year when her daughter was beaten by her husband Amarjit Singh and also during his examination-inchief has stated that all the accused used to beat the complainant. I have gone through the contentions of ld. Counsel for the complainant and ld. Defence counsel and the authorities relied upon by the ld. Defence counsel and of the considered view that contentions of ld. Defence counsel and of the considered view that contentions of ld. Defence counsel carries weight and complainant has made the vague and general allegations against the appearing accused. No doubt the complainant has deposed that accused Amarjit Singh has treated the complainant with cruelty by beating the complainant with hunter but complainant has not mentioned any specific act of cruelty committed by the appearing accused. Hence offence under Section 498-A is not made out against the appearing counsel.” 5. The reasons given by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents No.2 to 6 are sound reasons. Learned counsel for the applicant failed to point out any misreading of evidence on record by the trial Court. 6. Hence, this application stands dismissed. --------------------