JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. The present application is confined to applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, since the same was not pressed qua applicant No.1, who is the husband of the deceased - sister of the first informant. 2. The applicants are the original accused in the F.I.R. registered vide C.R. No. 1-100 of 2017 with Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City, District: Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the IPC"). 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 - first informant is the sister of one deceased Parulben. Applicant No.1 is the husband, applicant No. 2 is the mother-in-law, applicant No. 3 is the father-in-law and applicant No. 4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Parulben. The marriage of Parulben with the applicant No. 1 was solemnized on 20.05.2014 and after the marriage, Parulben started residing with the applicants in a joint family. It is alleged that the applicants are origin from Africa, so they all went there, including Parulben, where she has been subjected to harassment. It is submitted that due to harassment caused by the applicants, Parulben left her matrimonial home in the month of January, 2016. After that, during her stay at her parental home, Parulben suffered from serious illness and, therefore, she passed away on 17.02.2017. After that on 18.04.2017, the sister of the deceased Parulben-respondent No. 2 filed the impugned F.I.R. against the applicants before the Mahila Police Station under Sections 406 and 114 of the IPC regarding stridhan as well as it is alleged that before marriage, applicant No. 1 made false promise. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Shweta S. Lodha for learned advocate Mr. Popat appearing for the applicants has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same does not disclose any offence against the applicants. She has submitted that the marriage of applicant No. 1 has been solemnized on 20.05.2014 with Parulben, i.e. sister of the first informant. After residing together, no dispute has been arisen. She has submitted that after some time, there were some matrimonial disputes between applicant No. 1 and Parulben, therefore, she left to India from Africa with all her articles and everything. She got her all articles at her place and the applicants are not aware about anything. 4.1. Learned advocate Ms. After residing together, no dispute has been arisen. She has submitted that after some time, there were some matrimonial disputes between applicant No. 1 and Parulben, therefore, she left to India from Africa with all her articles and everything. She got her all articles at her place and the applicants are not aware about anything. 4.1. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has further submitted that the first informant left her matrimonial home in the month of January, 2016 and she stayed at her parental home. She did not make any demand of any articles from the applicants and also did not send any notice regarding stridhan. She has submitted that on 04.10.2016, she filed an application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 930 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ("the Code") for maintenance in the Family Court, Rajkot. At that time also she did not file any complaint regarding stridhan. She did not make any complaint/demand about stridhan and after long time, the impugned F.I.R. came to be filed with mala fide intention. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been filed just to harass the applicants and the same is an afterthought and, therefore, the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside. 4.2. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that the wife of applicant No. 1, i.e. the deceased Parulben (sister of the first informant) passed away on 17.02.2017 due to illness and during her lifetime, she made an application for maintenance but she did not make any application for stridhan (kariyavar) as the same was already with her. However, the first informant, who is the sister of deceased Parulben, filed the impugned F.I.R. after her death and during her lifetime, no stridhan was demanded by Parulben or by the first informant. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. came to be filed just to harass the applicants with ulterior motive. 4.3. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that deceased Parulben never made any compliant against anybody as alleged in the F.I.R. She has submitted that applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the deceased Parulben, are aged about 68 and 69 years respectively and they have been implicated only just to pressurize applicant No. 1. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has submitted that deceased Parulben never made any compliant against anybody as alleged in the F.I.R. She has submitted that applicant Nos. 2 and 3, who are the mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the deceased Parulben, are aged about 68 and 69 years respectively and they have been implicated only just to pressurize applicant No. 1. Applicant No. 4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased Parulben and she is residing with her family at Rajkot and her marriage was solemnized on 08.04.1994, which is prior to the marriage of deceased - Parulben and since then, she is residing separately and all the family members have been implicated with a view to pressurize applicant No. 1. 4.4. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has further submitted that the impugned F.I.R. was filed with mala fide intention and to settle the dispute regarding the property. She has submitted that as and when the first informant came to know that applicant No. 1 landed in India in the month of April, 2017, she immediately filed the false and frivolous F.I.R. in question. Thus, she has submitted that the impugned F.I.R. may be quashed and set aside. 4.5. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has further submitted that the allegations made against the applicants are general in nature, vague and the same do not constitute any offence. She has submitted that even the essential ingredients of Sections 405, 406 of the IPC i.e. criminal breach of trust have not been made out from the F.I.R. itself and, therefore, the present application may be allowed. 4.6. Learned advocate Ms. Lodha has pointed out the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ("the Act") and submitted that even otherwise in case of a female Hindu dying intestate the property shall devolve to the firstly upon sons and daughters and the husband; secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; and thirdly, upon the mother and father. She has submitted that the sister of the deceased, who is even otherwise not entitled to stridhan and hence, the impugned F.I.R. is misconceived and liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present before this Court, has submitted that charge-sheet is already filed and it is revealed that the deceased had filed a case against applicant No. 1 being Criminal Misc. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt, on instructions of the Investigating Officer, who is present before this Court, has submitted that charge-sheet is already filed and it is revealed that the deceased had filed a case against applicant No. 1 being Criminal Misc. Application No. 930 of 2016 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rajkot seeking maintenance, wherein she has stated that the husband and his family were ill-treating her. She has submitted that the statement of the first informant was also recorded on 18.04.2017, wherein she has stated that the husband and his family members were harassing the deceased and hence, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru appearing for respondent No. 2-original first informant has adopted the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt and has submitted that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by applicant No. 1 and his family and hence, she was apprised to file the maintenance application before the Family Court being Criminal Misc. Application No. 930 of 2016. 7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 8. In the present case, respondent No. 2, who is the sister of the deceased, has filed the impugned F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Section 406 of the IPC, whereby alleging the criminal breach of trust against the applicants for not returning the stridhan, which was bestowed upon her sister. It is also not in dispute that the wife of the applicant No. 1 i.e. the sister of the first informant passed away on 17.02.2017. The impugned F.I.R. has been lodged for not returning the stridhan of the deceased. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: "15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.--(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,-- (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband." 9. The provision of Section 15 of the Act refers that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,--(a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; lb) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; thirdly, upon the mother and father. Thus, the property-stridhan of the deceased wife gets devolved on the applicant No. 1. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Sham Lal & Ors. Etc vs. Amar Nath & Ors., 1970 AIR(SC) 1643 while examining the provisions of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 with regard to stridhan has observed thus: "Stridhana other than shulka passes in the following order: (1) unmarried daughter; (2) married daughter who is unprovided for; (3) married daughter who is provided for; (4) daughter's daughter; (5) daughter's son; (6) son; (7) son's son. If there be none of these, in other words, if the woman dies without leaving any issue, her stridhana, if she was married in an approved form, goes to her husband, and after him, to the husband's heirs in order of their succession to him; on failure of the husband's heirs, it goes to her blood relations in preference to the government. But if she was married in an unapproved form, it goes to her mother, then to her father, and then to the father's heirs and then to the husband's heirs in preference to the government". But if she was married in an unapproved form, it goes to her mother, then to her father, and then to the father's heirs and then to the husband's heirs in preference to the government". The legal position is stated in identical terms in Mayne's Treatise on Hindu Law (Eleventh Edn., Paragraph 623, pages 744 to 746) as well as in the other text books on Hindu Law referred to at the time of the hearing. At this stage it may be mentioned that the correctness of the order of succession mentioned in Paragraph 147 till we come to Item No. 7 (son's son) was not challenged. The same is well settled by decided cases. It is not necessary to refer to those cases. The only contention advanced on behalf of some of the defendants is that after son's sons come son's daughters. Alternatively it was contended that the expression "son's son" includes "son's daughter". We have to see whether these contentions are well founded. 6. The rules relating to succession to stridhana enunciated in the text books are based on Yajnyawalcya's text "her kinsmen take it, if she die without issue". This statement is elaborated by Vijnyaneswara in Mitakshara. The relevant portions thereof as translated by H.T. Colebrooke are found in placita 8, 9, 10 and 11 in Section XI of his book "Mitakshara". They read as follows: "8. A woman's property has been thus described. The author next propounds the distribution of it: 'Her kinsmen take it, if she die without issue'. 9. If a woman die "without issue" that is leaving no progeny; in other words, having no daughter nor daughter's daughter nor daughter's son, nor son, nor son's son; the woman's property, as above described, shall be taken by her kinsmen; namely her husband and the rest, as will be (forthwith) explained. 10. The kinsmen have been declared generally to be competent to succeed to a woman's property. The author now distinguishes different heirs according to the diversity of the marriage ceremonies. The property of a childless woman, married in the form denominated Brahma, or in any of the four (unblamed modes of marriage), goes to her husband : but, if she leave progeny, it will go to her (daughter's) daughters : and, in other forms of marriage (as the Asara & Co.), it goes to her father (and mother, on failure of her own issue). 11. Of a woman dying without issue as before stated, and who had become a wife by any of the four modes of marriage denominated Brahma, Daiva, Arsha and Prajapatya, the (whole) property, as before described, belongs in the first place to her husband. On failure of him, it goes to his nearest kinsmen (sapindas) allied by funeral oblations. But, in the other forms of marriage called Asura, Gandharba, Racshasa and Paisacha, the property of a childless woman goes to her parents, that is, to her father and mother. The succession devolves first (and the reason has been explained before) on the mother, who is virtually exhibited (first) in the elliptical pitrigami implying 'goes (gach 'hati both parents (pitarsu) that is to the mother and to the father'. On failure of them, their next of kin take the succession." Thus, if a married Hindu woman dies without leaving any issue, her stridhana, if she was married in an approved form, goes to her husband, and after him, to the husband's heirs in order of their succession to him; on failure of the husband's heirs, it goes to her blood relations in preference to the Government. In the present case, the captioned writ application is not pressed against the husband - applicant No. 1. Even assuming for the sake of the argument that the first informant is claiming stridhan then also applicant Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are the mother-in-law, the father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased cannot be said to have the custody of the stridhan as the same belongs to the husband of the deceased. Similarly, the first informant, who is the sister of the deceased cannot allege that applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have committed the offence of criminal breach of trust. Thus, the entire F.I.R. is ill-conceived since no offence of criminal breach of trust is established. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar, 2016 (4) GLR 2785 , has held that thus: "7. To sum up the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. To sum up the position seems to be that a pure and simple entrustment of stridhan without creating any rights in the husband excepting putting the articles in his possession does not entitle him to use the same to the detriment of his wife without her consent. The husband has no justification for not returning the said articles as and when demanded by the wife nor can he burden her with losses of business by using the said property which was never intended by her while entrusting possession of stridhan. On the allegations in the complaint, the husband is no more and no less than a pure and simple custodian acting on behalf of his wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution u/s. 406 of the IPC. On a parity of reasoning, it is manifest that the husband, being only a custodian of the stridhan of his wife, cannot be said to be in joint possession thereof and thus acquire a joint interest in the property." Thus, as per the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the husband of the deceased sister of the complainant can be said to be the only custodian of the stridhan of the wife and if he diverts the entrusted property elsewhere or for different purposes he takes a clear risk of prosecution under section 406 of the IPC. The facts in the present case suggest that the sister of the deceased wife of applicant No. 1 has initiated the criminal proceedings against the in-laws for retaining the stridhan. After the death of the wife, the husband becomes the rightful owner of the stridhan, hence the present application, which is pressed apropos father-in-law, mother-in law and sister-in-law merits acceptance as the ingredients of section 405 of the IPC, which defines "criminal breach of trust" are not satisfied. After the death of the wife, the husband becomes the rightful owner of the stridhan, hence the present application, which is pressed apropos father-in-law, mother-in law and sister-in-law merits acceptance as the ingredients of section 405 of the IPC, which defines "criminal breach of trust" are not satisfied. Section 405 of the IPC reads as under: "SECTION 405 : 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 willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust" Explanation 1. xxxx Explanation 2. xxxx." In the instant case, the quintessential features of dishonest misappropriation or conversion or disposing of the property i.e. stridhan are conspicuously missing since the law recognizes the ownership of the husband on the property belonging to a legally wedded Hindu wife after her death. Hence, in absence of the satisfaction of the ingredients of section 405 of the IPC, the offence punishable under section 406 of the IPC fails legal scrutiny. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt as well as learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru for respondent No. 2 have emphasized upon the application filed by the deceased claiming maintenance before the Family Court, Rajkot and have submitted that the applicants were harassing the deceased and hence, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed and set aside. This Court is not impressed with the arguments advanced by the learned advocate for respondent No. 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Filing of the application under the maintenance would not ipso facto make the applicants accountable for the alleged offence as registered in the impugned FIR. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Bhatt as well as the learned advocate Mr. Rajyaguru for the respondent No. 2 are unable to point out any order of any Court implicating the applicants for inflicting any harassment or cruelty on the deceased. 13. In this view of the matter, no offence as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. has been established against the applicant Nos. 2 to 4. Rajyaguru for the respondent No. 2 are unable to point out any order of any Court implicating the applicants for inflicting any harassment or cruelty on the deceased. 13. In this view of the matter, no offence as alleged in the impugned F.I.R. has been established against the applicant Nos. 2 to 4. Hence, the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. 1-100 of 2017 registered with Mahla Police Station, Rajkot City, District: Rajkot qua the applicant Nos. 2 to 4 as well as the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.