FEROZA MAHBOOB Vs. QAMAR ALI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall give the decision of Criminal Revision No. 700 of 1985 (Firoza Mehboob v. Qumar Ali Shah and another) filed by the complainant in the case and direct against the same impugned order.

(2.) This revision tiled under sections 397/ 410 Cri. P.C. is directed against the order dated 13.6.1985 passed by Kumari, Kshipra Jha, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in Criminal Case No. 641 of 85 refusing to frame charge against the non-applicant and thereby acquitting him of offences under sections 40.5 and 406. I P.C.

(3.) Non-applicant was admittedly married to one Firoza Mehboob, the revision petitioner in Cri. Revision No. 700 of 85 on 22.10.1980 Unfortunately, their marriage could not last long and therefore the non-applicant divorced her on 25-8.82. The said Firoza Mehboob lodged a complaint with the police authorities that she had received ornaments, clothes, utensils etc. from parents and relatives as gift at the time of the marriage of which she was the exclusive owner. According to her, complaint, the said property was delivered to the non-applicant at the time of Rukhsat and non-applicant signed the list of the property in acknowledgement of the receipt. She further complained that after divorce the non-applicant failed to return the property willfully and intentionally. Since the property belonged exclusively to the complainant and the non-applicant held the sane in trust, his failure to return amounted to offence punishable under sections 405/406, I.P.C. on the aforesaid complaint the matter was investigated by the police authorities who ultimately filed challan against the respondent No.1 alleging offence under section 405 read with section 406. I.P.C. The matter was taken up by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 13-6-1985 for framing of charge. It however appears that the non-applicant had on 11-1-1985 filed 3 documents as per list to show that he had always been willing to return the property of the complainant. But it was the complainant who had (not cared to receive the same. These documents were taken on record and considered while deciding whether challan should be framed or not. Relying on these documents the learned Magistrate held that they prayed that the non-applicant had no intention of misappropriating the complaintTs property. On this conclusion the non-applicant was discharged. That is how the matter is before this Court.