ALKA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA, for the State and perused the record.This revision is directed against the order dated 15.7.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateV, Ghaziabad in Criminal Complaint No.3064 of 2010, Smt. Alka v. Ram Pratap & Ors., under Sections 406 IPC, PS Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad whereby the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C.

(2.) It was pointed out by the Court that the family of the accused includes dei;ar and nanad also and it cannot be presumed that dowry articles were entrusted to devar and nanad also. Learned counsel conceded that devar Shyam Pratap and nanad Km. Rekha may be exempted from summoning and the revision respect of devar and nanad be treated as not pressed by the revisionist. However, in respect of husband, fatherinlaw and motherinlaw, the contention is that they were entrusted with the property mentioned in the list at Articles Nos.l to 39. It was further submitted that if the list has not been signed by the persons who received the property, it can not lead to a conclusion that such articles were not given at the time of dowry whereas, in oral evidence, specific mention was made in the statement of Krishan Pal Singh that the articles mentioned in the list were given to the accused persons.

(3.) 1 have considered the complaint, statement of complainant and her witnesses and the impugned order. As far as the impugned order in respect of husband, motherinlaw and father inlaw of the complainant is concerned, the same cannot be said to be justified. Someone from the family of the accused has to be responsible for the return of the articles given at the time of dowry, if the couple is not living together. Apparently, husband and his parents are responsible for the same. Thus, in respect of husband and his parents, the dismissal of complaint is not proper.