GYANCHAND Vs. THAWARDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE process issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha on 12-4- 1988 under Section 406 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters-in-law of the respondent complainant in this petition. They were married to the sons of the complainant. The petitioner No. 2 happens to be the brother of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, whereas the petitioner No. 1 happens to be the father of petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(3.) THE case made out by the complainant before the Trial Court was that, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 were married to his 2 sons and at the time of the marriage, he had given some golden ornaments to them. These ornaments are detailed in paras 3 and 4 of the complaint. It is his contention that some ornaments are given at the time of marriage, whereas some ornaments were given after the marriage. His further case is that, on 6-8-1987, the accused No. 2 took his two sisters (accused Nos. 3 and 4) to Sujalpur (Mandi ). Accused Nos. 3 and 4 took all these ornaments along with them. They were to stay at Sujalpur for about 8 or 10 days and were thereafter returned back to their matrimonial home along with the ornament. However, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 kept both these females at their house along with the ornaments. It is contended that the ornaments have not yet been returned back. The accused Nos. 1 to 4 have committed breach of trust in respect of these ornaments, and therefore, a complaint was lodged before the Court. The Court recorded the verification of the complainant on 13-11-87. It appears that the police were asked to enquire into the matter under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After the receipt of the report and the enquiry papers, the learned Magistrate passed an order on 12-4-1988 issuing process under Section 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the four accused.