Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 510 (UTT)

BALBEER SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2011-08-09

SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT This judgment will adjudicate both the criminal miscellaneous applications titled above as the same have arisen out of the common order dated 4.6.2009 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 127/2009, Niranjan Singh v. Balbeer Singh & Others. In the said order, applicants Baldev Singh, Balbeer Singh, Arjun Singh and Janta Singh have been summoned for the offence of Section 406 IPC. The cognizance was taken by the Magistrate against them on the complaint dated 25.3.2009 filed by Niranjan Singh. 2. To appreciate the matter and issue, it is worthwhile to note that the daughter of Niranjan Singh named Amarjeet Kaur tied her nuptial knot with Balbeer Singh on dated 8.4.2003 at Gurudwara Subhash Nagar, Delhi. It is also pertinent to note that Niranjan Singh, the complainant/opposite party no. 2 as well as the applicants in both the petitions hail from the same village Bheekampur within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Bajpur. Niranjan Singh still resides in the village while the applicants Balbeer Singh and Janta Singh reside in Delhi. The other applicants Arjun Singh and Baldev Singh reside in the village itself. 3. After passing the wedded life with all pleasure, Amarjeet Kaur died on 11.9.2008 in Delhi itself. Her father Niranjan Singh lodged an FIR on dated 11.9.2008 against Balbeer Singh for the offence of Section 304B IPC. After submission of the chargesheet in the said criminal case, the trial ended in acquittal albeit the benefit of doubt was given to Balbeer Singh. But the ultimate result was of acquittal on dated 29.10.2009 from the court of Additional Sessions Judge, West Delhi. When the trial was in progress in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Niranjan Singh gave a notice to the applicants alleging that whatever articles including jewellery were given in the wedding of Amarjeet Kaur to them, it is liable to be returned to him after the death of his daughter. He asked the applicants to return the entire articles and household things which were given in dowry otherwise warned them for initiation of legal action against. This notice was duly replied by all the applicants on dated 24.3.2009 with the averments that Amarjeet Kaur used to reside separately with Balbeer Singh in Delhi and rest of the applicants were not concerned at all regarding their dwellling and wedded life. This notice was duly replied by all the applicants on dated 24.3.2009 with the averments that Amarjeet Kaur used to reside separately with Balbeer Singh in Delhi and rest of the applicants were not concerned at all regarding their dwellling and wedded life. It was also averred in that notice that Balbeer Singh was facing the trial being incarcerated in Tihar Jail, Delhi. 4. The crucial question which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the household things including jewellery which was offered as dowry by Niranjan Singh in the wedding of her daughter Amarjeet Kaur to his son-in-law Balbeer Singh amount of an entrustment within the meaning of Section 405 IPC. In this regard learned Counsel of the applicants has relied upon the two precedents of Rajasthan High Court. In Khuman Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1998 Crl. L.J. 1670, Hon’ble Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court has held that gifts in cash or kind which are customarily given to in-laws at time of engagement, tilak or marriage according to prevalent customs cannot be regarded as entrustment or dowries. So no offence of Section 405 IPC can be said to be made out of such allegations. 5. In another case Praveen Kumar & Others v. State & Another, 1998 Crl. L.J. 1693 the same Justice of the Rajasthan High Court has held that any item or property which are offered to in-laws in the marriage is not an entrustment. Hence, mere refusal to return such a property is not covered under Section 405 IPC. Hence, the punishment under Section 405 IPC is not attracted. 6. Having gone through the above precedents, in these matters this Court has the view that offer of the household articles/cash/jewellery in concern with any matrimonial ceremony and the acceptance thereof as a stridhan is the exclusive property of the woman who weds with the man. It is the entrustment of that property from the side of her father to his daughter. Meaning thereby it is not the entrustment of any property from a father to the family or members, who are in-laws of that daughter. In any eventuality if the daughter leaves this mortal world for any reason whatsoever, then the dominion over that property will not return to the father of that woman. It will be inherited as per succession law. In any eventuality if the daughter leaves this mortal world for any reason whatsoever, then the dominion over that property will not return to the father of that woman. It will be inherited as per succession law. Father of the woman who weds his daughter looses the dominion or the ownership of all the properties at the moment he offers the same for the custody or use of his daughter and the same is accepted from the other side. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that this property dispute for the return of the same from the in-laws house to his daughter Amarjeet Kaur cannot be given shape to the offence of Section 405 IPC. Therefore, the cognizance order dated 4.6.2009 is liable to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. Both the petitions are allowed.