RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. RAMA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant 482 petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the Criminal Complaint No. 1695 of 1995 pending in the court of VIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly (Smt. Rama Agarwal Vs. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal) filed by opposite party no. 2 on 30.11.1995, under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. It is further prayed that the entire proceedings may be quashed.

(2.) IT is borne out from the record that the opposite party no.2 filed a criminal complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly against the applicant that she was married with the applicant according to the Hindu custom and rites on 20.9.1991 and at the time of marriage various households items were given but after the marriage the applicant never treated her humanely and in cordial manner instead of tortured her mentally and physically both behaving rudely that she was ousted from her marital home only in clothes on 12.11.1992. Neither the applicant nor his family members called her back nor any maintenance provided hence she had to move a complaint on 30.11.1995 for returning all the goods given at the time of marriage. The opposite party no. 2 had also filed a list of household goods given at the time of marriage along with the complaint. The court below after recording the statements of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. found prima facie offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out against the applicant hence passed the order on 23.2.1996 taking cognizance of the offence fixing 21.3.1996 for his appearance.

(3.) THE Apex Court has held that even if the decree of divorce has already been passed a separate decree in respect of the property claimed by wife can be passed under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and has also observed that the expression "at or about the time of marriage" has to be properly construed to include such property which is given at the time of marriage as also the property given before or after marriage to the parties to become their "joint property' implying thereby that the property can be placed to have connection with the marriage. All such property is covered by Section 27 of the Act. It is further argued that the applicant has now been retired from service now aged about 64 years who was an employee in the State Bank of India and he had also undergone open heart surgery in the year 1992. The proceedings have been initiated with mala fide intention hence liable to be quashed.