LAWS(GJH)-2013-2-299

VIRENDRASINH NANDSINH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On February 20, 2013
Virendrasinh Nandsinh Chauhan Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.PC) praying for quashing of a criminal case No. 34 of 2008 lodged with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendernagar for the offences punishable under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) with the allegations that the petitioner did not return "Stridhan" despite the complainant's repeated demands. It is, thus, alleged in the complaint that petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC by misappropriating the stridhan entrusted to the petitioner at the time of marriage in the year 1990.

(2.) THE petitioner and second respondent got married in the year 1990. However, immediately there was irretrievable marital discord. Consequently, a petition for divorce was filed by the petitioner in the year 1995 which was decreed in the year 1997 which was sought to be appealed against in the year 2001 and the competent appellate court having refused to condone the delay in preferring such appeal, Special Civil Application was filed before this Court which also came to be dismissed by an order dated 28.01.2008. Thus, it appears that decree of the divorce has attained finality.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through various documents produced alongwith the petition which indicate that on 19.11.1999, a notice by registered post was addressed to the second respondent as well as her brother asking them to collect stridhan as per the list available with the second respondent. The addressees refused to accept such notices and, therefore, the petitioner once again addressed the notice under postal certificate to the second respondent and her relatives which was also refused. The petitioner, therefore, addressed a public notice produced at Annexure 'B' on 26 th November, 1999, once again calling upon respondent No.2 to collect her stridhan. It is submitted that however, the second respondent did not respond to any of the notices.