INDU KHANNA & ORS. Vs. STATE & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioners who are sister -in -law and the mother -in -law of the Complainant challenge the orders dated 10th August, 2011 and 13th September, 2011 directing and framing charges for offence under Sections 498A/379/34 IPC against the Petitioner No. 1 and under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC against the Petitioner No. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on 19th December, 2011 this Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties issued notice limited to the extent of challenge to the impugned orders framing of charge under Section 379 IPC against the Petitioner No. 1 as on the facts on record the charge under Section 498A against the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and under Section 406 against the Petitioner No. 2 is clearly made out. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that on the allegations set out in the FIR and the charge sheet, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 379 IPC is not attracted. Petitioner No. 1 has not removed the articles of the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 was married thirteen years prior to the marriage of the Complainant with her brother. The Petitioner No. 1 is a school teacher living separately in her matrimonial home and has no interference in the matrimonial home of the Complainant. Further no charge sheet for offence under Section 379 IPC was filed against the Petitioner No. 1 and the learned Trial Court erroneously framed the charge under the said section. There is no averment that the Petitioner No. 1 knew that the jewellary belonged to the Complainant. Further the objection of the complainant was not at the time when the jewellery was given to the Petitioner No. 1 by Petitioner No. 2 but was subsequently made. The allegations do not mention any specific date, time or place. The source from where the dowry items were given has not been disclosed. Hence the Petitioner No. 1 be discharged from the offence under Section 379 IPC.

(2.) LEARNED APP for the State on the other hand contends that the allegations against the Petitioner No. 1 are covered by Illustration - (o) to Section 378 IPC. In Pratibha Rani vs. Suraj Kumar and another, : AIR 1985 SC 628 it was held that the articles of istridhan are the exclusive property of the woman and when the said exclusive possession is disturbed, then the allegations of misappropriation and theft are made out. Reliance is also placed on Anil Bhardwaj and others vs. State, : 1985 (8) DRJ 75 and Kishan Chand vs. State, : 27 (1985) DLT 91. Further relying upon State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sheetla Sahai and others, : 2009 (8) SCC 617 it is contended that if two views are possible at this stage the order has to be of framing of charge and the benefit of doubt to the accused can only be given only at the end of the trial.

(3.) AS per the charge sheet the Complainant has alleged offences under Section 498A against the Petitioners and Section 406 IPC against the Petitioner No. 2 besides other relations. However, the bone of contention in the present petition are the allegations as set out herein below: