V.BASKARAN Vs. K.M.RATHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal original petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.18 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli as against the petitioner/A2.

(2.) It is averred in the petition that the petitioner's younger brother by name V.Nambirajan figured as A1 in the private complaint married the complainant's daughter by name Kavitha on 06.02.2003. The spouses went to U.S.A. and settled there. They were blessed with a daughter by name Darshika in 2003 in U.S.A. and as such, the daughter is also a citizen of U.S.A. Unfortunately, the daughter of the complainant Kavitha met with a motor car accident in U.S.A. on 28.05.2006 and died. The dead body was brought to India and was cremated. Their daughter Darshika was left with the custody of the complainant. In 2007, when Nambirajan came back to India, the complainant and his wife pleaded to take back the child, but, the accused refused. Thereafter, the complainant preferred a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate alleging that the petitioner and his brother did not return 150 sovereign of gold jewels and when A1 went to the house of complainant, he threatened his family members and refused to return the gold jewels and silver items. The private complaint has been made with allegation that accused took away the gold jewels and silver articles given to Kavitha and failed to return them and the same attracts to an offence punishable under Section 406 of I.P.C. The same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.18 of 2010 by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tiruchirapalli. To invoke the provision under Section 406 of I.P.C., there must be entrustment for a specific purpose and if the entrustment is proved even then it has to be established that the property so entrusted was converted to any other purpose other than the purpose, for which it was entrusted. After the demise of Kavitha, the locker in the joint name of Kavitha and first accused was not even opened as the bank has not given duplicate key of the locker, after the loss of the key during funeral time. Therefore, the offence alleged in the private complaint is not made out and therefore, the complaint has to be quashed, as against the petitioner/A2.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence as alleged in the private complaint is not made out as against the petitioner/A2; that there is no material for entrustment or conversion of the same for some other purpose and therefore, the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate in C.C.No.18 of 2010 is to be quashed as against the petitioner.