OM PARKASH Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OM Parkash and his father Nanak Chand petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, have come up in criminal miscellaneous Under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing of the criminal complaint dated 17-11-87, Under Sections 406/120-B, IPC, Annexure P2 and the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Fazilka, dated 15-5-88 Annexure P3.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments in the impugned complaint, Vinod Kumar respondent got his sister Veena Kumari married to petitioner-1 and spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- on the marriage and gave dowry articles mentioned in Annexure 'a'. In October 1986, Veena Kumari gave birth to a child. She was asked to bring Rs, 11,000/- or else the petitioners would not allow her to enter her matrimonial home. During her stay at her in-laws' house, she was being maltreated by petitioner-1 and his other relatives (impleaded as accused 3 to 6 in the complaint ). On 3-9-87, petitioner 1 and his other relatives (arrayed as accused) set Smt. Veena Kumari on fire on account of insufficiency of dowry. On 15-10-87, the respondent, alongwith his other relatives, contracted the petitioners and their other relatives and called upon them to return the dowry articles. They gave the assurance to return the same, but subsequently refused to do so.

(3.) THE dowry articles regarding which criminal breach of trust is stated to have been committed belarged to Veena Kumari (since deceased ). Admittedly, she had a son out of the wedlock. Under natural succession, the son and husband of Veena Kumari would be the legal heirs, but in case her husband commits the murder, he would not get his share in the property and the entire property would devolve on her son. In the complaint, Vinod Kumar respondent is not claiming to act on behalf of the minor-son, but he claims the return of dowry articles for himself and his other relations. Even if Om Parkash has lost the right of succession to the property of his wife, Veena Kumari, he still has the right of acting as a guardian of his minor son. During the minority of his son, he has a legal right to possess the property of the minor. Assuming all the facts given in the complaint as correct, no criminal offence is made out. The petitioners were legally justified to refuse to hand over the dowry articles belonging to Veena Kumari, regarding which her minor son has become the owner. If the respondent feels that it is not in the interest or welfare of the minor to hand over these articles to petitioner 1, he has his remedy in the Guardian Court. Criminal forum cannot be allowed to be used for settling disputes of civil nature. The continuation of the criminal complaint made by the respondent is, thus, clearly an abuse of process of the Court. The criminal miscellaneous is, thus, accepted and the impugned complaint and subsequent proceeding in the Court of the Magistrate stand quashed.