GOVERDHAN LAL SACHDEVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Shashibala, daughter of the complainant Om Prakash, was married to petitioner No.2 Bhupinder Sachdeva on 18th November, 1993. The marriage was arranged after the complainant had given an advertisement in a local newspaper for a bridegroom for his daughter. The father of petitioner No.2 had also given a similar advertisement looking for a bride for his son. About three months before the marriage, petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2, is alleged to have approached the brother-in-law of the complainant and demanded in dowry a motor car, fridge, television and other domestic items of luxury. The brother-in-law of the complainant did not agree to give car in dowry and the complainant who was also present at that time did not speak anything. On 16th November, 1993, the sagan ceremony had taken place in which the complainant is alleged to have given a colour television, re- 391 frigerator, Yamaha motorcycle, washing machine, a gold locket weighing about 27 gms. other jewellery, wrist watch and cash as well. The marriage took place on 18th November, 1993. Within a week of marriage, the petitioner No.2 and his father informed the daughter of the complainant to ask her father to give a car. As the complainant was not in a position to give a car, the petitioners are alleged to have started harassing her. The daughter of the complainant talked to the complainant on phone about the harassment meted out to her at which the complainant and his wife went to their daughter's matrimonial home to enquire as to why they were harassing their daughter, at which the father of petitioner No.2 told them that a car was demanded in marriage and as the same was not given, they did not want to keep other articles in their house. At this, the daughter of the complainant started weeping. Thereafter several phone calls were alleged to have been made by daughter of the complainant about the harassment which was meted out to her regarding the demand for a car. On or about 6th December, 1993 the daughter of the complainant is stated to have gone to Aurangabad along with her husband. From Aurangabad a telephone call is stated to have been received by the complainant from her daughter about some other woman who was staying in the hotel with whom her husband was allegedly having relations. However, during the conversation the telephone was dis- connected. On 18th December, 1993 a telephone call was received by the complainant from his son-in-law informing the complainant that his daughter had expired at Aurangabad. The complainant reached Aurangabad and on the basis of his complaint a case under section 498-A/306/.34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners 1 & 2 and one Bhupinder Kaur at PS Kanti Chowk, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. On a representation having been made by the complainant Section 304-B was subsequently added.

(2.) As the dowry articles which had been given to his daughter by the complainant were being mis-appropriated by the petitioners, he lodged a complaint on the basis of which an FIR under Section 406/120-B Indian Penal Code was registered against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the registration of a case under Section 406/120-B Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the same.

(3.) The contention of the petitioners is that under Section 405 Indian Penal Code, it is only in a case of dishonest misappropriation of property by a person that he can be charged with an offence punishable under section 406 Indian Penal Code The contention is that it has nowhere been alleged that the petitioners were trying to dishonestly misappropriate or convert to their own use the property which had been given to them in trust. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments reported as Sardar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1977 SC 1766; Mahipal Baladur Singh Vs. State, 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1851; and State of U.P. Vs.R.K.Shrivastava. 1989(4) SCC 59. '