Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1920 (RAJ)

MANSINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-08-28

SABINA

body2017
ORDER : SABINA, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 23.06.2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the year 2004 engagement ceremony of the son of the petitioner was performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3. Thereafter, marriage of the son of the petitioner could not be performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, articles including gold jewellery given by the petitioner to the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3 had not been returned. Hence, offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was duly made out against respondents No. 2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 has submitted that in fact all the gifts, which had been given by the petitioner to the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3 had been returned to the mediator, after the engagement was broken. 4. In the present case, after thorough investigation of the case, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. However, trial Court vide order dated 13.01.2011 took cognizance of the offence on a protest petition filed by the petitioner. Court of revision vide impugned order dated 23.06.2011 allowed the revision petition filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. 5. In the present case, engagement of the son of the petitioner was performed with the daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3. However, at a later stage, marriage of the son of the petitioner was not performed with daughter of respondents No. 2 and 3. The dispute between the parties can be said to be purely civil in nature as the petitioner can file suit for recovery of the articles in question. However, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. The dispute between the parties can be said to be purely civil in nature as the petitioner can file suit for recovery of the articles in question. However, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. Section 405 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read as under:- "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. The alleged offence in the present case does not fall within the definition of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 7. No ground for interference is made out.