ORDER The applicant Rahul Barhat, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the charge-sheet dated 29.05.2009 (annexure-5) of Case Crime No. 301 of 2008, State v. Rahul Barhat, under Section 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. A first information report was lodged by the informant (respondent No. 2 herein) against five accused persons including the present applicant on 24.12.2008, at PS Dalanwala, District Dehradun, which was registered as Case Crime No. 301 of 2008, under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. After the investigation of the case, a charge-sheet under Section 406 IPC and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act was submitted against the applicant. Cognizance on the said charge-sheet was taken and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the offences complained for against him. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. 3. According to the first information report, engagement ceremony of the informants daughter with the applicant was performed on 20.07.2007 at Ajanta Hotel, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. The engagement ceremony was attended by the applicantâ„¢s mother, sister, brother and brothers wife along with many others and relatives. A C.D. was also prepared on the occasion and photographs were also taken. The marriage was to be performed on 13.05.2008 at Junagarh (Gujarat). Informant booked a hotel for the marriage at Junagarh. The applicant is an officer serving in Indian Police Service. He was posted in Andhra Pradesh. Applicant, his mother, brother, brothers wife and sister, all were given gold chains. Applicant was also given golden ring. Golden chains and golden ring cost about 2 lacs. They also demanded Rs. 11 lacs at the time of engagement ceremony in tika, which demand was also fulfilled. Rs. 11 lacs were handed over to his mother and sister. Not only the hotel was booked in the marriage on 13.05.2008, marriage cards were also printed. Arrangements for marriage were being done. About 20 days before the marriage, informant was intimated to give an advance of Rs. 50 lacs and only then the marriage would take place on 13.05.2008. Informant went to meet the applicants mother. She along with her daughter and daughter-in-law reiterated the same demand. Applicant endorsed the same. Informant could not meet their demand. About 20 days before the marriage, informant was intimated to give an advance of Rs. 50 lacs and only then the marriage would take place on 13.05.2008. Informant went to meet the applicants mother. She along with her daughter and daughter-in-law reiterated the same demand. Applicant endorsed the same. Informant could not meet their demand. They were not ready to solemnize the marriage of applicant with his daughter. They did not return Rs. 11 lacs +5 lacs+3 lacs = 19 lacs, which expenses were incurred by the informant in the marriage ceremony, as also in purchase of articles. According to the allegations, accused persons committed criminal breach of trust and, therefore, the first information report under Sections 498-A, 406, 120-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was lodged. [Applicant was charge-sheeted under Section 406 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and was, therefore, summoned only for the selfsame offences]. 4. The question is- whether foundation of Criminal Offence (s) against the accused-applicant is laid or not? If so, for which offence(s). 5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the incident occurred on 20.07.2007 and first information report was lodged by respondent No. 2 on 24.12.2008, after a delay of more than one year, which creates serious doubt on his conduct. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the entire family of the applicant was involved. Investigating officer conducted investigation in a casual manner and submitted a charge-sheet relying upon the statements of family members of respondent No. 2. He also contended that on a bare perusal of the charge-sheet and the first information report, no case under Section 406 IPC or section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made out, as the marriage did not take place and there was no entrustment of money to the applicant. He denied having ever given such money/articles to the applicant in the engagement ceremony. Learned counsel further contended that the allegations in the first information report were of civil nature and, therefore, charge-sheet filed against the applicant should be quashed. 6. He denied having ever given such money/articles to the applicant in the engagement ceremony. Learned counsel further contended that the allegations in the first information report were of civil nature and, therefore, charge-sheet filed against the applicant should be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance upon Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 712 : (2009 AIR SCW 3976), in which it was held that for the purpose of constituting an offence for criminal breach of trust and/or cheating, the ingredients thereof as contained in Sections 405 and 415 respectively must be borne out from the records. Upon taking a holistic view of the matter vis-a-vis statutory provisions, it has to be held that the appellants have made out an exceptional case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of the Code. It was held that it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Larger part of the offence was committed only in Canada. It is difficult to comprehend why respondentâ„¢s father had come from Canada to Jalandhar to lodge the first information report. Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations contained in the first information report had been made with an ulterior motive to harass the appellants, to a criminal proceeding, therefore, would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placed reliance upon Kushal Kumar Gupta and another v. Mala Gupta, (2011) 12 Supreme Court Cases 434 : ( AIR 2011 SC 3805 ); Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another, (1985) 2 Supreme Court Cases 370 : ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ); Madhu Sudan Malhotra v. Kishore Chand Bhandari and others, 1988 (supp.) Supreme Court Case 424 and Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 604 : (2010 AIR SCW 2809). 8. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kushal Kumar Gupta and another v. Mala Gupta ( AIR 2011 SC 3805 ) (supra) that: “8. 8. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kushal Kumar Gupta and another v. Mala Gupta ( AIR 2011 SC 3805 ) (supra) that: “8. In Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab (2009 AIR SCW 3976) (supra), this Court held that when on investigation it was found that no case of cheating or criminal breach of trust had been made out against the accused, the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings. In the said case the issue was whether a prima facie case had been made out against the accused. The situation in this case is different, since the complaint itself makes out a prima facie case to go to trial. The petitioners case does not fall within any of the circumstances indicated by this Court in para 102 of its judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ). The other judgments cited are on the same lines and do not require our attention separately. 9. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhu Sudan Malhotra v. Kishore Chand Bhandari and others (supra) that: “we are prima facie inclined to the view that the furnishing of a list of ornaments and other household articles such as refrigerator, furniture, electric appliances etc. at the time of the settlement of the marriage amounts to demand of dowry within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1981.‌ 10. It will be of great use to reproduce herein the observations made in majority view of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and others ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ) (supra): “11. A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint undoubtedly makes out a positive case of the accused having dishonestly mis-appropriated the articles handed over to them in a fiduciary capacity. To characterise such an entrustment as a joint custody or property given to the husband and the parents is wholly unintelligible to us. All the ingredients of an offence under Section 405 IPC were pleaded and a prima face case for summoning the accused was made out. In such circumstances, the complainant should have been given an opportunity by the High Court to prove her case rather than quashing the complaint. All the ingredients of an offence under Section 405 IPC were pleaded and a prima face case for summoning the accused was made out. In such circumstances, the complainant should have been given an opportunity by the High Court to prove her case rather than quashing the complaint. Such an exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is totally unwarranted by law. 16. In a later decision in Bhai Sher Jang Singh v. Virinder Kaur, 1979 Cri LJ 493, it was very rightly pointed out by the same High Court that Section 27 of the Marriage Act merely provides an alternative remedy to the wife to bring a properly constituted suit in respect of the stridhan property which the husband refused to return. Thus, it is clear that Section 27 merely provides for an alternate remedy and does not touch or affect in any way the criminal liability of the husband in case it is proved that he has dishonestly misappropriated the stridhan of his wife. It cannot also be spelt out from any textbook or the sastric law of the Hindus that the two Acts- at the most these Acts merely modify the concept of stridhan. It may be useful to refer to certain pertinent observations in the aforesaid case. The aforementioned passage shows that a female has an absolute right to use her stridhan in any way she likes and even if her husband can take this property at the time of distress, this right is personal to him. The allegations made in the instant complaint are not that the husband of the respondent has placed her ornaments and jewellery etc. out of her way. What has been alleged therein is that the petitioners who are the parents-in-law of the respondent have converted the ornaments and clothes, etc. presented to the respondent at the time of her marriage to their own use. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers a court while deciding a matrimonial dispute to also pass a decree in respect of property which may jointly belong to both the husband and the wife. This section at best provides a civil remedy to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband. This section at best provides a civil remedy to an aggrieved wife and does not in any way take away her right to file a criminal complaint if the property belonging to her is criminally misappropriated by her husband. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also gave guidelines to the High Courts in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and others ( AIR 1985 SC 628 ) (supra) as under: “59. We now come to the question as to whether or not a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties was made by the appellant in her complaint and, if so, was the High Court justified in quashing the complaint at that stage. It is well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court that for the purpose of exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a FIR or a complaint the High Court would have to proceed entirely on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint or the documents accompanying the same per se. It has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness or otherwise of the allegations. In case no offence is committed on the allegation and the ingredients of Sections 405 and 406 IPC, are not made out, the High Court would be justified in quashing the proceedings. In the present case, we shall show that the allegations are both clear, specific and unambiguous and, therefore, the complainant should have been given a chance to prove her case. It is, of course, open to the accused at the trial to take whatever defences that were open to him but that stage had not yet come and therefore, the High Court was totally ill-advised to speculate on the merits of the case at that stage and quash the proceedings. 11. When an offence of criminal breach of trust will be held to be committed? Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica (2010 AIR SCW 2809) (supra), elaborated the same: Å“53. 11. When an offence of criminal breach of trust will be held to be committed? Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhaskar Lal Sharma and another v. Monica (2010 AIR SCW 2809) (supra), elaborated the same: Å“53. The offence of criminal breach of trust as defined in section 405 IPC may be held to have been committed when a person who had been entrusted in any manner with the property or has otherwise dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates it or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses it, or disposes it of, in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the rut is to be discharged, or of any lawful contract, express or implied, made by him touching such discharge, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. 12. A prima facie case under Section 406 IPC was, therefore, held to be made out against the applicant, irrespective of the fact that the marriage of applicant with the daughter of respondent No. 2 could not take place. The presents given to the applicant and his family members ought to have been returned by him to respondent No. 2 upon his notice. 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Some of those principles can be summarized as below: i. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ii. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. iii. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. iii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. iv. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. v. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 14. Thus it was held that where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the Courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not, but if the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of an offence are not satisfied then the court may interfere. 15. In the instant case, the facts of the first information report have been summarized briefly in para 3 of the judgment above. Although, the marriage between the couple could not took place, but the fact remains that golden chains were entrusted to the applicant, his mother, brother, brothers wife and sister. Applicant was also given golden ring. Allegedly, Rs. 11 lacs were also given at the time of engagement, apart from incurring expenditure in the engagement ceremony. Although, the marriage between the couple could not took place, but the fact remains that golden chains were entrusted to the applicant, his mother, brother, brothers wife and sister. Applicant was also given golden ring. Allegedly, Rs. 11 lacs were also given at the time of engagement, apart from incurring expenditure in the engagement ceremony. A notice was given to the applicant on behalf of the respondent No. 2, whose daughter was to be married to the applicant. It was clearly written therein (in the notice) to return the money spent by respondent No. 2 in the engagement ceremony, which notice was replied to by the applicant, but the fact remains that the factual controversy need not be gone into by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 16. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid in the Section itself. 17. Prima facie there was wrongful retention of the articles given in the engagement ceremony on the part of the applicant and therefore, the charge-sheet submitted against the applicant does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. 18. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits and is therefore, dismissed. Liberty is however, granted to applicant to take all the factual pleas before the trial court for obtaining his discharge /acquittal at an appropriate time. 19. It is, however, provided that if the applicant surrenders before the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, his bail application shall be decided by the court concerned as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay. Application dismissed.