V CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. VASANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri V. Chandrasekharan, the petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings under Section 406 Indian Penal Code pending against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in case No. 41/1/1989.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that Smt. Vasantha, petitioner's wife, respondent herein filed a criminal complaint in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi under Section 406 Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 alleging therein that at the time of her marriage parents, relatives and family friends of the complainant gave valuable gifts/ jewellery to the complainant which exclusively belong to her and constitute her Stridhan. That at the time of her marriage the complainant was working in the office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nehru Place, New Delhi and after marriage she went to Madras to live with her husband after taking leave. She returned to Delhi on 6.4.1986 to join her duty and while leaving Madras she left all valuable gifts/articles at Madras except jewellery and ornaments. In May, 1986 she again went to Madras and stayed with the accused till 19-7-1986. That the accused came to Delhi in the early days of October,1986 and started living and cohabiting with the complainant as husband and wife at Delhi in the house of parents of the complainant and one day the accused told the complainant that it was not safe for her to keep her jewellery at home and further asked her to give her jewellery to him so that he could keep it safe in some locker in the bank. The complainant thus entrusted her entire jewellery with the accused in good faith. Thereaafter, the accused wanted the parents of the complainant to help him to the extent of Rs. 60,000 in his business, which they could not arrange and, therefore, the dispute started between the parties and that the complainant demanded the return of her jewellery from the accused, but he refused. On this basis the complaint under Section 406 Indian Penal Code was filed.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the proceedings under Section 406 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on various grounds. According to the petitioner the allegations made in the complaint are themselves contradictory. According to the statement of the complainant she had entrusted the jewellery with the husband only at New Delhi. But in her own statement in other legal proceedings she has contradicted herself. The entrustment of the jewellery is not apparent from the record. The complaint also does not disclose the date on which the entrustment of jewellery was made. The details of the jewellery have also not been mentioned in the complaint. There was no inventory of the gold jewellery in the complaint. The alleged entrustment of gold jewellery with the accused and the demand by the complainant to return the same are doubtful.