VEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRIMATI Manju Aggarwal, respondent-2 filed a complaint to the Magistrate and the same having been forwarded to the Police, case : First Information Report No. 25 dated 3-4-89, for offences under Sections 406/ 120-B/420/504/34, Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Chappar. All the present petitioners are close relatives of Rishi Pal Aggarwal, husband of respondent-2. Smt. Gian Devi petitioner-3 having died, her name be struck off from the array of petitioners. Vide this criminal miscellaneous Under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned FIR and the subsequent proceedings.

(2.) BRIEF facts, stated in the complaint Annexure P1 are that respondent-2 was married to Rishi Pal Aggarwal about 10 years ago. Immediately after the marriage, she and her husband handed over the ornaments weighing about 77 Tolas to Sunder Lal petitioner-6 and his wife Gian Devi petitioners-3. Both of them gave an undertaking that the ornaments would remain in trust with them and would be returned as and when demanded by respondents-2. The ornaments, in fact, were handed over to Sunder Lal petitioner-6 who made over the same to Gian Devi petitioners-3. Sometime thereafter a cash amount of Rs. 70,000/- was also kept in trust with Sunder Lal and Gian Devi by respondent-2. Respondent-2 and her husband lived jointly in one house with the petitioners till July, 1985, but thereafter differences arose with regard to the partition of the property. On account of the differences, respondent-2 and her husband demanded back the ornaments and cash from Sunder Lal and Gian Devi, but they were told that the trust property had been handed over by them to Gopi Chand, at the instance of Sarwan Kumar petitioner-4, Vishwa Mitter petitioner-5, Smt. Veena Devi petitioner-1 and Smt. Kusum Lal petitioner-2. Both Sunder Lal and Gian Devi, petitioners also promised to return the same. On 2-8-85 same writing was also recorded and signed by Sarwan Kumar, Vishwa Mitter, Sunder Lal, Rishi Pal and two other relatives with regard to the return of ornaments to the complainant. Subsequently, however, these articles were not returned and a flat refusal was made.

(3.) SO far Sunder Lal is concerned, the allegations made in the complaint speak of a criminal act committed by him since it is alleged that the ornaments and cash were entrusted to him and his wife and the same had not been returned to her. On the basis that Sunder Lal had given the information that he had handed over the ornaments and cash to Gopi Chand petitioner-7 at the instance of Smt. Veena Devi petitioner-1, Smt. Kusum Lata petitioner-2, Sarwan Kumar petitioner-4 and Vishwa Mitter petitioner-5, they cannot be made liable for an offence Under Section 406, IPC. Taking the allegations stated in the complaint at their face value and accepting the same to be true in its entirety, they do not constitute the offence alleged. The same will justify the quashing of the proceedings in view of the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR SC 866.