Sunil Hali, J.— Both the aforesaid applications arise out of same Case Crime and are between the same parties hence they are being decided by a common order. By means of the aforesaid application, applicants have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 708 of 2009, under Section 406 IPC, read with Section 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate Chandausi, District Moradabad as well as the order dated 20.1.2012 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandausi, District Moradabad. The contention of the counsel for the applicants is that no offence against the applicants is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. Allegations contained in the complaint are that the marriage of opposite party no. 2 was solemnized with applicant no. 1 and in the said marriage father of opposite party no. 2 gave Rs 3.80 lacs to the accused persons along with several ornaments, households items, furniture and cash. After the suit for divorce was decided in favour of the husband, complainant demanded the Stridhan and other articles given at the time of her marriage from the applicants which was refused by them. It is further alleged that the Stridhan of opposite party no. 2 is being used by the accused persons and other relatives of the husband and they are not returning the property to the opposite party no. 2. It is contended that no offence of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, IPC is made out and hence the proceedings pending against the applicants and the order issuing non bailable warrants be quashed being patently illegal and wrong. The offence of criminal breach of trust defined in Section 405 IPC and punishable under Section 406 requires: (1) entrusting any person with property or with any dominion over property, (2) the person entrusted, (a) dishonestly mis-appropriating or converting to his own use that property or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or willfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged or (ii) of any legal contact made touching the discharge of such trust. From a perusal of the above provision, it may appear that for constituting the offence of criminal breach of trust, the necessary ingredients are that any property should either be entrusted to a person or the person be put in dominion over that property. The person so being entrusted with the property or having the dominion over it, must be shown to have misappropriated it or to have converted that property to his own use or has dishonestly used or disposed 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 willfully suffers any other person so to do. In the instant case, the allegation is that the applicants had been entrusted with some movable properties belonging exclusively to the opposite party No. 2 and that they had dishonestly mis-appropriated those properties or converted them to their own use. The allegations would at once make out a case of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406, IPC and as there is allegation of dishonest mis-appropriation and/or conversion, it would not be out of place to mention that it may also constitute an offence under Section 403, IPC. If the acts complained of attracted the provisions of both the Sections 403 and 406, IPC there could be no chance of quashing the proceedings of entire case pending against the applicants. As such, I do not find any illegality in the process issued against the applicants. This is not the stage for going into the question that no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC and hence it does not merit any consideration at this stage. The properties are said to be stridhan properties of the complainant which were given to her at the time of her marriage and which were taken by her to her matrimonial house. According to the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 the Stridhan was entrusted to not only her husband, the applicant No. 1, but also to the other applicants who are her in-laws, for their safe custody. According to the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 the Stridhan was entrusted to not only her husband, the applicant No. 1, but also to the other applicants who are her in-laws, for their safe custody. In Rashmi Kumar Vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada, (1997) 2 SCC 397 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Properties gifted to the bride before the marriage, at the time of marriage or at the time of giving farewell or thereafter are her stridhan properties. It is her absolute property with all rights to dispose at her own pleasure. The stridhan property does not become a joint property of the wife and the husband has no title or independent dominion over the property as owner thereof". "Entrustment is not necessarily a term of law. It may have different implications in different contexts." "It is always a question of fact in each case as to how the property came to be entrusted to the husband or any other member of the family by the wife when she left the matrimonial home or was driven out therefrom. No absolute or fixed rule of universal application can be laid down in that behalf. It requires to be established by the complainant or the prosecution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case as to how and in what manner the entrustment of the stridhan property of dominion over her stridhan came to be made to the husband or any other member of the family or the accused person, as the case may be." For the reasons stated above, I do not find ground either for quashing the criminal proceedings or the non bailable warrants issued against the applicants. Both the aforesaid applications are hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged. Trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. _____________