ANANDKUMAR CHANDANLAL JAISWAL Vs. MADHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Gondia, taking the cognizance of the case and issuing process to the accused (present petitioners), passed on 21st Aug., 1987 is sought to be quashed by an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The petitioner No. I is the son of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 (who are husband and wife). Petitioner No. 4 is the sister of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners Nos. 5 and 6 are the brothers of the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 7 is the mother of petitioner No. 2. They constitute a Joint Hindu Family and re residing at Nagpur. The petitioner No. 1 was married to respondent No. 1 on 4.6.1985. However, they could not pull. on well with the result that on or about 12.6.1986 within an year the wife had to leave the abode of her husband. The husband filed a matrimonial petition No. N.M.P. No. 219 of 1987 before the Second Joint Civil Judge,. Senior Division, Nagpur for divorce against his wife (present respondent No. 1). The respondent No. 1, on the other hand, filed a complaint against the present petitioners (including the husband) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Gondia. That complaint has been registered as Criminal Case No. 765 of 1987.

(3.) In the complaint the respondent No. 1 alleged that at the time of her marriage on 4.6.1986 and also at the time of the marriage reception held at Nagpur on 6.6.1986, she got the gifts from the visitors who attended the function. Some of the gifts were given even by the parents of her husband. After the marriage, she came to reside, with her husband and she handed over all these gifts to the respondents. Within an year of her marriage, she, she 153 marriage and was driven outside the house only with the wear, it rusted woe It is her contention in the complaint that the pras driven, ti-fie received by way of gifts at the time of her marriage Party of the to the petitioners. They were the trustees. After the demand, out from the house, it was the legal obligation the complaint. petitioners to return back her ornaments, butaffiration. The these gifts have not been returned back. Hence the complaint.